Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

N.A.T.O. Research Centre, La Spezia

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many British scientists and specialist officers of the Royal Navy will be employed at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation research centre on defence against submarines shortly to be set up at La Spezia; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): This centre, which is being inaugurated by SACLANT and financed, at feast for the initial period, entirely by the U.S.A., is intended to augment the scientific effort devoted by the several N.A.T.O. countries to anti-submarine warfare research. The centre will be concerned primarily with basic problems but will also undertake some operational research. The precise number of British scientists and Royal Naval officers to be employed there is still under discussion.

Commander Maitland: In view of the fact that this country will benefit more than any other country from any successful discoveries that are made at this new base, how is it that we did not take the initiative, and can my hon. Friend assure me that we are treating this matter as seriously as we should?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have our own centres for research on under-sea warfare, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the Admiralty are treating the matter extremely seriously. This is well illustrated by the fact that the naval

adviser on the Scientific Advisory Council which will guide the work of this unit will be the Chief of the Royal Naval Scientific Service.

H.M.S. "Hampshire" (Loss)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make available the documents referring to the loss of H.M.S. "Hampshire".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Records of historical naval interest, such as the loss of H.M.S. "Hampshire," are, with some exceptions and on certain conditions, made available to bona fide historians and also to private authors to assist them in the production of their works. The Admiralty reserves the right to scrutinise the draft of the proposed work and to require the author to make any amendments to the text which appear necessary in the public interest.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my hon. Friend's Answer mean that the Admiralty would not wish to censor those portions of a book derived from other sources? In view of the fact that apparently Mr. McCormick, who recently wrote "The Mystery of Lord Kitchener's Death", was refused access to papers, would it not be fair that he should now have first access to these records?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad to have an opportunity of clarifying the first point raised by my hon. Friend. We normally wish to see the whole book or article in order to ascertain the context in which Admiralty information has been used. We also have a responsibility for the security which might be involved.

Mr. Callaghan: After 43 years?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In reading the whole book, the historical branch of the Admiralty is often able to help with matters of historical fact and to correct them, but I am aware that in a recent instance the wording of a letter went rather further than it should have done, and I am sorry that this should have occurred.
In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it would be wrong to give, as it were, overriding priority to any one author and thus exclude others. These records are often made available under the conditions I have laid down, and the Admiralty will


be happy to make them available to those who take a genuine interest in research.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the myth which has surrounded the loss of this ship for many years, I take it that the hon. Gentleman's reply does not mean that he is denying access to information about the loss of H.M.S. "Hampshire" on security grounds today. I take it that he is referring to a general rule and that his reply is not related specifically to H.M.S. "Hampshire."

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, it was a general reply. We must consider the security aspect before making records available. We must obviously study security, because in certain cases, particularly of intelligence matters—for example, signals intelligence— these are techniques which are still used today. We should not wish them to be available generally. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are very happy to make our records available under the general conditions which I have indicated to the House.

Admiralty Houses, Crombie

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) if he will treat as a matter of urgency the bad condition of Admiralty houses in Crombie, Fife; and whether he will give an assurance that immediate steps will be taken to carry out all necessary repairs, especially where failure to do so might endanger the health of tenants;
(2) if he is aware that in certain Admiralty houses in Crombie, Fife, drain covers are inside the houses, lavatories have no means of ventilation, interior walls are bare brick, and there is no hot-water supply and no bathroom provisions in many of the houses; and if he will give an assurance that the whole of the money drawn from the increased rents will be devoted to carrying out the much-needed repairs and modernisation.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I am aware that these houses are old fashioned, but they are not in such a bad state of repair as is suggested, nor is there danger to the health of tenants. The newly assessed rents are related to the value of the houses as they now stand. It is our intention to put in improvements where this is practicable, and plans towards this end are now being prepared.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is clearly dictated by the smoothness of the advice he has obtained from the people on the spot? I have been there in the last fortnight and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conditions are as bad as the Questions indicate. Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that he will give this matter very careful consideration and, if need be, go and see the conditions there?

Mr. Galbraith: I try to get round all Admiralty establishments. It is true that I have not visited Crombie yet, but I expect to be able to do so in due course. The undertaking which I gave was that plans towards the effective improvement of these houses are being studied.

Landing Ships Tank

Mr. Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of Landing Ships Tank, in commission and in reserve; and the number on loan to Army and civilian authorities.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As shown in my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates (Cmnd. 674), there are four Landing Ships Tank in commission and six in reserve. Seventeen have been permanently transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, which operates them on behalf of the War Office. A further eight are either on loan to the Ministry or on civilian charter and can be recalled in emergency.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient specialised shipping is available to move Army tanks or vehicles wherever they may be required in an emergency?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are about meeting the likely needs, but it is impossible to say that one will have the ships available in the right place at the right time. That is a matter which we are studying closely.

Coventry Gauge and Tool Company (Contracts)

Miss Burton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what alternative naval contracts are to be offered by the Admiralty to the Coventry Gauge and Tool Company to counterbalance the transfer of existing contracts from Coventry elsewhere.

Mr, C. Ian Orr-Ewing: No additional naval contracts can be offered for this purpose. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) on 22nd April, it is for the firm to decide at which of its factories work should be carried out.

Miss Burton: While not wishing the unemployment figures to remain at the high level in Angus to which the Government have brought them, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to realise that we are raising this matter because of the wastage of skill which will be involved in Coventry? Is he aware that we are very disturbed that at Coventry Gauge and Tool Company skilled machine tool operators are having to leave and are not finding jobs commensurate with their skill? Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that that is Government policy, as he did last week?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I said it was Government policy generally to encourage work to go to areas of high unemployment. That is exactly what has happened in this instance, and the hon. Lady herself confirms that the unemployment figures for Angus are very many times above the figures for Coventry.

Miss Burton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and as the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand the problem, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Frozen Foods

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what cold storage accommodation is available at Devonport for supplying Her Majesty's ships with quick frozen foods, including vegetables.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty has no deep freeze facilities at present at Devonport. Ships do, however, occasionally buy these foods direct from the trade, and the possibility of making wider use of these foods in H.M. ships is being investigated.

Miss Vickers: May I ask my hon. Friend seriously to consider setting up this facility in Devonport Dockyard, as it would be a great convenience to the smaller ships, and I am quite certain that it would be widely patronised?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that deep freeze facilities would necessarily have to be put in the dockyard, if we came to use deep freeze food in ships. It might be possible to make commercial arrangements in the area. However, I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is his Department's policy in regard to supplying Her Majesty's ships with frozen boned meat.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Packeted boneless beef has been supplied to smaller ships, where space is at a premium, for many years. We have arranged for supplies of frozen joints of beef without bone, as well as frozen joints of mutton and lamb, to commence this summer for ships generally.

Devonport Dockyard

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on how many occasions, during the last two years, Her Majesty's ships in the operational fleet have been informed that they cannot be taken in hand by Devonport Dockyard because the yard was stated to be full up with work.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: During the last two years ships of the Operational Fleet have been taken in hand for their refits and intermediate dockings broadly as programmed in Devonport and in other yards.
On occasion, these ships apply for work to be done other than at programmed refit and docking times for repairs arising from unforeseen circumstances. This work is undertaken if it is considered essential; otherwise, it is deferred until the next programmed refit. Requests of this kind are naturally numerous, but no occasion is known where work of an essential nature has not been undertaken.

Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can assure me that no ship returning from a long period overseas will be denied facilities for leave because there is not adequate provision in Devon-port Dockyard? Will he assure me, too, that he will see that minor repairs are done in Devonport Dockyard in view of the fact that we have a large unemployment problem in that area?

Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of the question to do with leave, but I can assure my hon. Friend that no essential work is ever delayed.

Aircraft Carriers

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what aircraft carriers will be available for operational duties in the Fleet in 1970.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: It would be rash to predict what ships will be available over ten years hence. The remaining life of Her Majesty's ships "Victorious", "Centaur", "Eagle", "Ark Royal" and "Hermes" is, however, such that, barring the unforeseen, they should all be capable of operational service in 1970.

Sir P. Agnew: Can my hon. Friend give the House the assurance that there are no ships included amongst those names which will be over age by 1970? Can he say what plans the Royal Navy has for giving up-to-date air support?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am happy to confirm that the hulls of these ships will not at that stage be over age. I think it would be wrong to lay down our exact plans for eleven years hence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Admiralty are very conscious of the need to provide air support at that date, and plans will be made in order to afford it.

Directorate of Officer Appointments

Mr. Willis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Directorate of Officer Appointments has completed its job of bringing emergency planning arrangements into line with modern requirements; and when the substantial reductions in the personnel of this Office, promised in March, 1958, are to be made.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Not yet, Sir, though considerable progress has been made. This Directorate has, of course, many duties besides those mentioned by the hon. Member. Reductions which have been made during the year have been offset by the need to add staff to the Employment Liaison Section, which helps retired officers find civilian employment.

Mr. Willis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that thirteen or fourteen months ago this job was supposed to be a very short one and that I was informed that after this job had been completed there would be substantial reductions in this office? When is this reduction to be made? The staff is far too great.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to assure the hon. Member that a Departmental investigation has recently taken place on this very count, and we will certainly see that action is taken as soon as possible to reduce the numbers.

Ships (Modernisation)

Mr. Atkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty at what stage in a ship's life he normally decides not to undertake further modernisation.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: In very broad terms, a warship has a useful hull life of about twenty years. The pace of development of modern equipment and weapons is likely to make a modernisation necessary about half way through this period. Normally, we should expect a modernised ship to give some eight to ten years' useful service thereafter.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for that reply. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he recognises that a ship which is not fully modernised and is getting old may still perform useful if somewhat more limited service and that he will keep a careful eye on that, since, if a watch is not kept upon it, a lot of work may be very wasteful?

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the distressing experience with the "Victorious", which will be thirty years old almost by 1970, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been any recent review in the Admiralty of the comparative costs of modernisation as against scrapping and rebuilding?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I first set the hon. Gentleman right? Although the hull will have been laid down some thirty years, it is not thirty years' sea life which that hull will have had by 1970. It is that criterion which has to be taken into consideration. I will certainly bear in mind the second point which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

s.s. "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth" (Replacement)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the importance to the Royal Navy as well as the Merchant Fleet in ship design for the future of marine application of nuclear power, whether, before negotiations are finalised for subsidizing the replacements of the "Queens", he will recommend that an expert committee should be set up to consider the possibility of ensuring that any new techniques shall be made use of by the "Queens" in order to keep them supreme in their performance in the Atlantic.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I would remind my hon. Friend of the Committee under my chairmanship which has already been set up to tackle the problem of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships. The possible application to the replacements of the "Queens" will not be overlooked. The House will be aware that there are many questions, apart from technical feasibility, which require consideration before this method of propulsion can be freely used at sea.

Dame Irene Ward: Does that Answer mean that the design for the replacement of the "Queens", now or in the future, will be a matter for joint consultation between the Admiralty, the Ministry of Transport and the builders? Will it also be considered whether, if the nuclear-powered propulsion is not sufficiently far developed for the original replacement, it may be possible to arrange for the designs to be altered in the future?

Mr. Galbraith: What it means is that we are aware that nuclear propulsion may be available in time for these replacements and we are keeping the matter under review.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman keeping in mind the very large research resources in this direction which are available on the Tyne?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, I am. The hon. Member has another Question down concerning that later.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And on the Mersey.

Mr. Bence: And on the Clyde.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that recent statistics show that the demand for new merchant tonnage is almost non-existent and, in view of this, what steps he is taking to safeguard the future of the shipbuilding industry in this country.

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what factors have caused the fall in the tonnage of new shipping under construction and preparing in United Kingdom shipyards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am aware that the demand for new merchant tonnage is very small at the present time, but there has not been any significant fall in the tonnage under construction here and the level of output has been well maintained. The fall relates to ships whose keels have not yet been laid. This fall, due to lack of recent orders, is common in varying degrees to all countries and results in part from the very large number of orders placed in 1956 and 1957 and the current recession in world trade.
An increase in orders is dependent upon world trade recovery, which Her Majesty's Government are taking all possible steps to foster.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the serious nature of that Answer, does the hon. Gentleman not agree it is time that the Government were thinking of framing a definite policy of replacement at an agreed age of ship? What consultations are being held, or are proposed to be held, with the shipowners for that purpose?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member should address any Question concerning shipowners to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Willey: Concerning Question No. 7, is the Civil Lord aware that this figure has fallen for the past seven consecutive quarters and is causing concern? What we want from the industry, particularly in present circumstances, is to increase its rate of output. In view of the present intense competition, will the hon. Gentleman do his best to encourage the industry to endeavour to increase and not reduce its rate of output?

Mr. Galbraith: I agree with the hon. Member about what we want, but it is


difficult to increase output when hardly any orders are being placed anywhere throughout the world.

Mr. P. Williams: Whilst I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's Answer, can he give an undertaking that he will make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer based upon the viewpoint that depreciation allowances in the future should be based on replacement cost and not on historic cost?

Mr. Galbraith: That also is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Merchant Tonnage Construction

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the tonnage under construction in United Kingdom shipyards for registration abroad.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Approximately 335,000 gross tons at 31st March this year, but in addition some 905,000 gross tons were on order.

Mr. Willey: Does the Civil Lord appreciate that this is the lowest figure since March, 1946, and that at the same time the amount of tonnage being constructed abroad for British shipowners is an all-time record? Again, does not the hon. Gentleman think that these factors should be called to the attention of both these industries?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has got it wrong. United Kingdom orders abroad are down this year compared with what they were last year.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that shipowners, shipbrokers and all people connected with shipbuilding and ancillary industries seem to view this matter with greater gravity than his Answer today indicates that he regards it? Therefore, will my hon. Friend take serious note of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) as one which deserves attention?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not wish the House to think that either myself or the Government are at all complacent about the state of the shipbuilding industry. All I am trying to point out to hon. Members is that when we have an order book of 5 million tons and when hardly

any orders are being placed throughout the world, it is extremely difficult to get the impetus which a smaller order book or conditions in which orders were being placed throughout the world would encourage.

Mr. Willey: Is the Civil Lord aware, however, that my Question is about tonnage under construction and that the existing figures show that more tonnage is under construction for British owners abroad than ever before? Will the hon. Gentleman face up to this and see that the shipping industry recognises its responsibility also to British shipbuilders?

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has yet received information about the potentialities of the advanced gas cooled reactor for propulsion of merchant shipping.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The Admiralty Committee under my chairmanship will have this information before it at its next meeting, which is to be held on Tuesday, 5th May.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the Civil Lord. Will he ensure that an announcement is made as soon as possible in view of the apprehension which is felt in the light of developments that are taking place in other countries?

Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly make an announcement as soon as possible, but I do not want to encourage the House to expect one in the immediate future.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent Her Majesty's Government are making use of research, now proceeding on Tyneside, into nuclear propulsion for shipping.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: A design study of propulsion machinery to match a nuclear reactor for use in a ship has been undertaken on Tyneside.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Civil Lord realise that there is some feeling that the Admiralty are proceeding on too narrow a basis for this work? Will he consider further work and the possibility of constructing a further experimental craft to see more clearly what the possibilities are?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think the Admiralty can be accused of working on a narrow front when we have had schemes provided by no fewer than seven firms.

Mr. P. Williams: Is it not a fact that the by now well-known Galbraith Committee is doing a considerable amount in co-ordinating this work, not only on Tyneside but at all yards, and that shipyards and builders are taking part in this extremely valuable work?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that is a correct assessment of the situation.

Watertight Doors, Coamings and Sills

Mr. Willis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether it is now the intention of the Board of Admiralty to review the fitting of doors, coamings and sills on Her Majesty's ships with the object of removing those that are unnecessary to secure the safety of the ships.
(2) in what circumstances commanding officers of Her Majesty's ships are permitted to remove watertight doors, coamings and sills, without obtaining prior approval of the Board of Admiralty.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: There is no intention of carrying out a general review of the fitting of doors, coamings and sills in Her Majesty's ships. Commanding officers are not normally permitted to remove watertight doors, coamings and sills without obtaining prior approval of the Admiralty. When, however, there are special circumstances which justify such an action, and it is clear that there would be no danger to the ship, and that the former conditions could be restored by the ship's staff at short notice, the Board would give its covering approval.

Mr. Willis: Does not that reply rather make nonsense of what the hon. Gentleman said last week, when he assured me that in one case these could be removed without jeopardising the safety of the ship? If they can be removed without jeopardising the safety of the ship, why should they not be removed for the convenience of the men?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it is true to say that after the war there may have been a slight over-insurance as a result of operational experience, in the extent to which ships were fitted with coamings and

sills, but that position has slightly changed and we are reviewing—in this instance we have done so—the matter to see whether it is strictly necessary to have quite so many. I think the commander was absolutely right to remove those, as he did on this occasion.

Captain Pilkington: Instead of sniping at these minor modifications—

Mr. Willis: I am not.

Captain Pilkington: —would it not be more appropriate to pay tribute to the success H.M.S. "Eagle" has had during her commission?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would endorse that H.M.S. "Eagle" has had a very successful commission indeed. She has taken part in the Mediterranean in a N.A.T.O. exercise with great success and, during her commission, has flown a record number of air sorties.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Whittington Barracks, Lichfield

Mr. Snow: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what plans are envisaged for the improvement of the older married quarters at Whittington Barracks, Lichfield;
(2) what redecoration and cooking facilities are offered to each new occupant of the older married quarters at Whittington Barracks, Lichfield.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): New married quarters are planned for completion in about three years. In the meantime we cannot undertake major improvements to the old buildings, but they are redecorated at the normal intervals and also, if necessary, when new occupants move in. Solid fuel cooking ranges are fitted in the quarters and are repaired or replaced as needed.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will give little satisfaction to the unfortunate occupants of these older quarters? I recently looked into a case myself. A lady with two infants was supposed to cook on a single gas ring and her husband had to obtain an electric cooker and, in part, redecorate the accommodation himself, having spent £7 on paint out of his own pay. Does


the right hon. Gentleman not think that among some of these barracks officers there is the feeling of "The colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady," and that their accommodation has fallen far short of what these ladies are entitled to?

Mr. Soames: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman about the quality of the accommodation. We are building new quarters and those old ones will be condemned and pulled down. I hope that the new ones will be completed within three years. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that meanwhile we cannot spend a great deal of money on existing quarters, but they are decorated at the same intervals of time as are others. If a quarter requires to be decorated a man can get the garrison engineer's signature to that effect. If he then decides to get on with the work and decorate the quarter himself he can get repayment of the money spent. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any instance to the contrary and will let me know about it, I will look into it.

Weybourne Camp, Norfolk

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the future use of Weybourne Anti-aircraft Camp, Norfolk, has yet been determined; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: Weybourne Camp is no longer required by the Army and will be disposed of unless another Government Department has need of it. This is now being considered.

Mr. Gooch: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the R.A.F. are interested in taking over the camp?

Mr. Soames: A number of Government Departments are expressing interest at the moment.

National Service Men

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War, (1) how many National Service men in the Army are married with a child or children;
(2) how many National Service men in the Army are the sons of widows living alone or with young children.

Mr. Soames: About 21,000 National Service men in the Army are married, but information about their children could

not be obtained without a search of individual records. I have no data at all on the second question.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware of the domestic tragedies arising particularly where a seventeen or eighteen year old mother and her baby are left alone? As certain classes of teachers have recently been exempted or released, would he seriously consider doing the same for these two categories? Does he appreciate the widespread feeling of injustice that such men are being called up when certain celebrated gentlemen are not?

Mr. Soames: I cannot agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I do not think that we shall ever get to the point where, as a category, National Service men whose mothers happen to be widows will, because of that fact, be relieved from National Service or allowed out on compassionate grounds. If by virtue of the fact that the mother is a widow there is definite hardship, and that is shown, a man is allowed out. Indeed, last year, 1,200 National Service men were allowed out on compassionate grounds alone.

Medical Treatment

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War if Army medical officers still prescribe "Medicine and duty"; and if the No. 9 pill is still in use.

Mr. Soames: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir", and to the second, "No, Sir".

Mr. Simmons: Would the Minister not agree that the old type medical officer had a very sharp eye for the scrounger and the "phoney"? If this treatment is still available, why is it not applied to lazy layabouts and neurotic nincompoops who seem to get discharged from the Army on the least possible pretext?

An Hon. Member: Give him the whole box.

Mr. Simmons: Is the old-fashioned treatment reserved for privates who have no pull with the Press and are therefore likely to suffer injustice in silence?

Mr. Soames: The Question refers to "Medicine and duty" and the No. 9 pill. "Medicine and duty" is a formula which has become enshrined in Army custom


and, in fact, means that it is not necessary for a man to return to see the medical officer. The No. 9 pill ceased to be used by the Army at about the same time as the hon. Gentleman left it.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War in what proportion of cases coming before Army medical officers during the past twelve months "Medicine and duty" and, or, a No. 9 pill has been prescribed.

Mr. Soames: No central record is kept of minor prescriptions.

Mr. Simmons: In view of the disquiet about the easy release of certain individuals, would it not be advisable to keep these records, and if, as the Minister says, the "Medicine and duty" formula is still used, why was not Terry Dene given medicine and duty?

Luminous Compasses

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for War what check is made on military personnel regularly carrying luminous compasses, and on those in charge of these compasses in store, to ensure that there is no danger from radiation.

Mr. Soames: Medical examinations are included among the protective measures which have been introduced for storemen and others who handle radioactive articles in bulk. It is not necessary to extend these precautions to soldiers carrying single compasses.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister say whether there has been any evidence of overdosing by radiation caused by these compasses, because there is anxiety about this in quarters that ought to know?

Mr. Soames: I have no information on that, but these precautions are being taken.

Medical Discharges

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements which in future will avoid the discharge on medical grounds from the Army of persons who immediately previously have been accepted as medically fit.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the cost to public funds in-

volved, he is satisfied with the present arrangements whereby a national service man, who is placed in Grade 1 at his pre-service medical examination, can be found unsuitable, on medical grounds, for military training after only a few days' service; and if he will consult with the Minister of Labour to see what improvements can be effected in the present system, in the interests of financial economy and administrative efficiency;
(2) on how many occasions during the past ten years soldiers, called up for military service under the National Service Acts, have been discharged after serving for seven days or less; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: The medical authorities of the Ministry of Labour work closely with those of the Service Departments. They agree together the standards which are to be applied by pre-service medical boards.
Over the last nine years, 928,000 national service men entered the Army. Medical discharges during the initial period of service—that is up to sixteen weeks—numbered 11,000, or about one per cent. of the total. Those figures, which are the nearest I have to the ones asked for my my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), include those cases in which disability could not have been established before service.
The figures show that it is rare for discharges to result from the diverging views of medical boards, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I have every confidence in the present system.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the Secretary of State see that his reply, which shows that this occurrence is comparatively rare, makes it all the worse that several very prominent individuals have been included in this very small category of persons who have been discharged on the second medical check-up; it is this which has caused public anxiety? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that very strenuous steps are taken better to co-ordinate these two medical authorities so that this does not occur?

Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman says "many cases", but I personally know of only two such cases out of a total of eleven thousand, which itself is one per cent. of the grand total.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public indignation and disquiet have increased as a result of the wholly unsatisfactory series of answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary last Wednesday? Is he aware that there is really no excuse at all for Terry Dene, Marty Wilde, Colin Cowdrey and the remainder being able to evade military service on grounds evidently that they earn large sums of money in civil life or are prominent sportsmen, whereas the overwhelming majority of young men have to do their full two years?
If the Waters case merited a tribunal of inquiry, would it not be advisable, to allay public disquiet, that we should have a similar inquiry about Dene, with full disclosure of the facts, including the medical reports, so that the House and the country may then judge the veracity of the statements which have been made by the Army medical authorities?

Mr. Soames: I must absolutely refute the inferences cast by my hon. Friend as to the attitude adopted by the medical authorities. I should be glad to say something to try to set this in a slightly different perspective. There is a small proportion of men who are considered fit for service at the pre-call-up medical board but in the event are found to be unfit-1 per cent. of the total over the last nine or ten years. The fact that the proportion is so small reflects credit on the medical profession. Occasionally it happens that one of these men is in the public eye, and that fact attracts publicity. I appreciate that it makes feelings run high. Neither the Adjutant-General's Department nor I, if I intervene in a case, have any alternative but to discharge a man, whatever his name may be, if the medical advice is as definite and unequivocal as it was in the case that the hon. Member has in mind.

Craftsman (Compassionate Release)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for 23506251, Craftsman L. G. Edwards, to have a compassionate release from the Services, in view of the circumstances at his home in Willenhall, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has received an account of our

inquiries into this case. It is not one in which the soldier's discharge would be justified. Craftsman Edwards is on a Regular engagement with an option to leave the Army next March if he so desires.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that both parents of this craftsman are in ill-health and that the burden of holding the family together falls on a 19-year-old sister? Does he know that the father's health has deteriorated considerably in the last two years? May I ask how much it will cost this man to buy his way out? Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Soames: I should require notice of the last part of that supplementary question, but I will certainly let the hon. Member know. As to the first part, the hon. Member has received a detailed letter from my hon. Friend on this case but, as far as we have been able to ascertain up to the present, there is no change in the home circumstances of this man now compared with what they were at the time when he voluntarily joined the Army three years ago.

Mr. Strachey: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the time would be appropriate now when his criteria for compassionate discharge could be considerably enlarged, not necessarily by whole categories as was suggested earlier, but in some way, because the right hon. Gentleman is not really scraping the bottom of the barrel by any means now in the way of call-up? I am sure that it would be appropriate to give instructions that a good deal more latitude could be given for compassionate discharge.

Mr. Soames: This is not a National Service man; he is a Regular.

Mr. Nabarro: He would get out if he were a "pop" singer.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisement

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to a television commercial broadcast at 8.15 on 11th April by Associated Television urging viewers to read details of the Messina case in the News of the World; whether he is aware that many


children will have been watching at that time; and what consultations he has had with the Independent Television Authority regarding the advertising on independent television of newspaper features on prostitutes and procurers.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Yes, Sir, but in case there is some misunderstanding the Authority informs me that the advertisement, while referring to the Messina case, did not mention prostitutes and procurers. The Answer to the last part of the Question is "None, Sir."

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not quite hypocritical to say that advertisements urging viewers, including children, to read the Messina case in the News of the World is not referring to prostitutes and procurers? Is not the News of the World quite capable of making sex pay without resorting to commercial advertising on television? Are not the programme contractors making enough money without having to resort to methods of this kind?

Mr. Thompson: The Authority assures me that it applied to this advertisement and others the standards which have been agreed and which are applied to advertisements of all classes.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman convey to the I.T.A. the view of the House that at least this was in bad taste?

—
Applications awaiting the provision of additional plant or equipment
Applications under enquiry or in course of being met
Total


United Kingdom







31st March, 1951
…
…
417,737
114,819
532,556


31st March, 1958
…
…
91,376
80,039
171,415


31st March, 1959
…
…
60,262
84,828
145,090


Preston Telephone Area







31st March, 1951
…
…
9,273
2,287
11,560


31st March, 1958
…
…
1,231
1,525
2,756


31st March, 1959
…
…
1,196
1,226
2,422


In the past 12 months 5,701 telephones were installed in the Preston telephone area and 355,902 in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Green: asked the Postmaster-General how many subscribers in the Preston telephone area are actually on a shared-line service as compared with

Mr. Thompson: I do not know in what capacity the right hon. Gentleman is speaking or why he claims to speak for the whole House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Preston

Mr. Green: asked the Postmaster-General how many people are waiting for telephone connection at the nearest convenient date, compared with the numbers in 1958 and 1951. in the United Kingdom and the Preston telephone area, respectively.

Mr. K. Thompson: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total number of people waiting for all reasons is now little more than a quarter of the comparable figure for 1951.

Mr. Green: Whilst I am very glad to hear that preliminary remark, may I ask my lion. Friend whether the time spent waiting for a connection is being steadily reduced and whether we can have an assurance that it will go on being reduced?

Mr. Thompson: We will certainly do our best to go on reducing it, but the time varies in different parts of the country and I am afraid that I could not give an answer which would cover all the cases.

Following is the answer:

those who have agreed to accept such a service.

Mr. K. Thompson: Information is not available in the form asked for by my


hon. Friend. Since 1st January, 1948, new and removing residential subscribers have been under a liability to share their lines if necessary, although as more equipment is installed it is becoming easier for us in many areas to avoid enforcing the sharing rule unless and until demand once again overtakes us. There are 32,306 residential subscribers in the Preston telephone area, of whom 11,811 are sharing. In addition, 3,097 business subscribers have voluntarily agreed to share their lines.

Mr. Green: May I ask my hon. Friend whether consideration will be given to offering to a new customer, or indeed an existing customer sharing a line, a choice between having an exclusive line at the full rate or a shared line at a lower rate?

Mr. Thompson: That is the policy at which we are aiming and, I am pleased to say, we are getting to the point at which we shall be able to make that offer. In the past two years the number of shared lines in the United Kingdom as a whole dropped by 47,000. In the Preston telephone area the number dropped by 107.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Missing Mail (Complaints)

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Postmaster-General how many complaints

Year
Total Unregistered Letter Traffic
Total Recorded Complaints
Total Unregistered Parcel Traffic
Total Recorded Complaints


1955–56
…
…
…
9,585 millions
57,452
217 millions
42,427


1956–57
…
…
…
9,597 millions
64,753
231 millions
41,006


1957–58
…
…
…
9,507 millions
67,040
232 millions
38,468

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Mountain Rescue Service

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the work performed during the past ten years by the Mountain Rescue Service of the Royal Air Force, both for civilians and members of the Royal Air Force; if he is further aware that the need for such a service is increasing and not diminishing, and that the skill acquired by these men will be lost if the service is discontinued; and if he will now reconsider his decision to reduce this service by 50 per cent.

have been received by the Post Office of missing non-registered letters and packages posted in the United Kingdom during 1956, 1957 and 1958.

Mr. K. Thompson: Central records of complaints are kept only for such letters when they contain articles worth 5s. or more and for parcels for which compensation has been paid. I am circulating the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister able to say whether the proportion of the total posted is greater or less?

Mr. Thompson: It maintains a fairly steady average. The figures show about seven letters in every million go wrong in some way.

Lieut.-Col. Bromley-Davenport: Is it not extremely unfair to blame the Post Office for these missing non-registered letters and packages? Should not some of the blame be apportioned to British Railways, which could not care less how bad a service it gives to everybody with its dirty, late and dangerous trains?

Mr. Thompson: I can only speak for the Post Office and assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we do the best we can.

Following are the figures:

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I am grateful to the hon. Member for this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Mountain Rescue Teams both in their primary task of rescuing aircrew and in assisting civilians. No decision has been taken to reduce the service. We are simply reviewing the number and location of the teams to see whether we could give as good a service more easily and economically.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it has been reported that there are only six teams in the country? They have


done excellent work but they are being reduced to three. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the work that these people have been doing is continued and that the number of teams is not reduced as has been suggested?

Mr. Ward: That report, which I have not seen, is quite untrue. The hon. Member will appreciate that, in the nature of things, some of these teams are very much busier than others and, therefore, it is natural that we should see whether we should not strengthen the busy ones at the expense of the others.

Mr. Awbery: Is not this a voluntary service?

Mr. Ward: Certainly, it is a voluntary service.

Mr. Watkins: When he is considering the retention of teams and their location, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the St. Athan Team has a very busy time in rescuing even military personnel in the Brecon Beacons?

Mr. Ward: Perhaps the hon. Member will write to me about that. I do not know what the position is with regard to the St. Athan Team.

Eastleigh Station, Kenya

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the accommodation being provided for airmen at the Royal Air Force Station, Eastleigh, Kenya.

Mr. Ward: The strength of this station is temporarily swollen by a newly formed squadron which will remain there for some months while work is being done on the runways at its permanent base. I visited the station earlier this month and saw conditions personally. The permanent accommodation is good but we need more. Arrangements are in hand to provide it.

Units (Movement)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the undesirability of uprooting married families unnecessarily, he is satisfied with the arrangements made by his Department for moving units from one station to another; what considerations of policy guide him in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ward: We do all we can to avoid unnecessary moves. Changes in airfield requirements, the need to lengthen or strengthen runways, and the concentration of units as the Service contracts make a number of moves unavoidable. Moreover, as opportunities arise we are moving units from temporary stations to suitable stations with permanent buildings.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling in the Service that administrative convenience is often put too high and comfort, especially of married families who are in married quarters, too low? Will he look particularly at this matter where units established in married quarters are moved to other stations?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very conscious of the need to keep married families in the same place as long as we can.

Aldergrove

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) how many Royal Air Force personnel are stationed at Aldergrove; and what type of flight training is done there;
(2) what is the average number of flights per day from Aldergrove; and how many of these have been civil aircraft diverted from Belfast airport;
(3) to what extent the main runways at Aldergrove are suitable for trans-Atlantic aircraft; and if they are strong enough for regular flights to take off and land there.

Mr. Ward: There are about 800 officers and airmen at Aldergrove. The meteorological squadron based at the airfield carries out normal squadron continuation training. The average daily number of flights is now 25. Diversions from Belfast Airport, Nutts Corner, mainly during the winter months, number about 25 a year.
The main runways at Aldergrove are strong enough for most existing trans-Atlantic aircraft but do not provide the take-off run required by the larger types if they are to fly direct.

Mrs. McLaughlin: What is the full capacity that could be stationed at Alder-grove? Is there any likelihood that this capacity will be taken up in the near future? What is the maximum number of incoming and outgoing flights which


could be undertaken from Aldergrove daily? Can my right hon. Friend say whether representations have been made to him about the possibility of the transfer of Belfast airport from Nutt's Corner to Aldergrove and what steps have been taken by his Ministry in connection with this matter?

Mr. Ward: I cannot answer the detailed questions put to me without notice, but I can say that discussions have started with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and that the joint study will be completed as soon as possible.

West Mailing Station

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what use is now being made of the Royal Air Force Station, West Mailing.

Mr. Ward: The runways at West Mailing are at present being resurfaced. We plan to move in a fighter squadron when the work is complete.

Mr. de Freitas: Does the Secretary of State realise that the order restricting private fliers from an area round this station is going far to exclude the unfortunate private pilot from yet another large area? Will the Secretary of State look at the terms of the draft order to see whether it is really necessary to go as far as is proposed?

Mr. Ward: That is quite a different question. I was asked about the use of West Mailing. I will certainly look at it.

Mr. de Freitas: But is not that directly relevant? If the station is not being used at the moment and it is only being resurfaced, is the order justified? When it becomes a fighter station, is the area wider than is necessary?

Mr. Ward: I will have a look at that.

Bristol Bloodhound

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent Service men or civilians from the manufacturers will be responsible for the servicing and maintenance of the Bristol Bloodhound surface to air missile.

Mr. Ward: We plan to make R.A.F. personnel responsible for limited servicing which can be done on the site. Major

servicing and repairs will be undertaken by industry. The final division of responsibility will be decided in the light of trials which are now being carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

International Route Signs

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that on the London—Harwich road there are international route signs incorporating the international route No. E.8 and other signs of the normal type incorporating his Department's classification route number A.12; and to what extent it is his policy that both route numbers shall be shown on all roads in this country which were included in the international network.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): There are eight routes in this country which are part of the international network. One of them follows the London—Birmingham Motorway, which is not yet completed, and three others branch off it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider with us whether there should be international route number signs on the appropriate routes in this country when the motorway is completed. In the meantime, the number "E.8" has been painted out on the signs to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could my hon. Friend say whether consideration is still being given to the possibility of making all our road signs conform to a greater extent to the Continental type?

Mr. Nugent: That is not, of course, strictly related to this Question. The answer, as my hon. Friend knows, is that it is not our present intention to change all our signs in this way, but where we are introducing new ones, as on the motorways, we are conforming as far as possible to the Continental practice.

Mr. Snow: But notwithstanding that reply, would it not be a good idea at any rate to start with school signs on these roads so that foreign drivers are aware of the proximity of school crossings?

Mr. Nugent: If the hon. Gentleman can tell me where school signs are missing, I shall be pleased to look into it.

Urban Motorways

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the Royal Institute of British Architects has received an unsatisfactory answer from the West Midlands and West Riding study groups on urban motorways, set up by him, to its representations concerning the desirability of appointing architects to these study groups; and whether he is satisfied that adequate attention will be given in future to the danger of the "subtopianisation" of increasing areas of the country.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the importance of using the best professional advice in this matter. I have written to the chairmen of the two committees, to which my hon. Friend refers, suggesting that they might consider associating an architect or planning expert with the work of their committees from an early stage. The committees are, of course, local authority committees, and not responsible to me.

Mr. Irernonger: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, is he aware that the relationship between the architect bodies and the local authorities does not seem to be altogether happy, and would he use his good offices to see that things are smoothed out generally throughout the country?

Mr. Watkinson: I am aware that, on the whole, the professional architectural associations feel that their advice has not been sought as much as they would like. It is certainly my wish, and that of my Department, that we should use their advice as much as we can. We shall need all the advice we can get if we are to solve the urban road problem in particular, so there is no lack of good will on the part of my Ministry.

Mr. Strauss: Whilst supporting the right hon. Gentleman in his attitude, can he do his best to prevent the use of the word "subtopianisation"?

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on many things but I can certainly agree with him on that.

Improvements, Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the frustration created in the

city of Bristol at his refusal to increase grants for the purpose of major road improvements to meet the growing traffic; and if he will now, in view of the urgent need, give reconsideration to the request of the Bristol City Council for such assistance.

Mr. Watkinson: I have carefully considered the representations recently made to me by Bristol Corporation against the background of my national responsibilities. I regret that I cannot at present add to the number of schemes I have already invited them to prepare.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that because Bristol is the gateway to the West it is necessary to have the roads in fine condition and that the Bristol Corporation is prevented from doing this because it has not got the finance to do so? Will he give the position careful consideration?

Mr. Watkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I saw a large deputation from Bristol, when they made their case ably, I thought, but I have to consider national priorities and not only those of Bristol. My answer is based on my decision on national priorities.

London-Yorkshire Motorway (Leicestershire)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Leicester and Leicestershire about the delay in dealing with the Leicestershire portion of the London to Yorkshire motorway; and whether he will now state what progress has been made in deciding on the route.

Mr. Nugent: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member in the Adjournment debate on 13th April.

Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why he is not proceeding further with this matter without delay? Did he not state in the course of that debate that he would give it early attention, and does he not think that after so many years he should be able to make up his mind about what he is going to do with regard to this road, which is so urgently needed?

Mr. Nugent: Our difficulty is that the local people are not able to make up


their minds. My right hon. Friend must take into account the very different conflicting points of view of the people in the neighbourhood to the north of Leicester as to which line shall be taken. My right hon. Friend will lose no time in reaching a decision on this difficult matter and will then announce his draft proposal. We can then hear what local opinion thinks about it.

Mr. Osborne: As the line may pass close to my house, may I beg my hon. Friend to give full weight to the Leicestershire County Council's point of view and not let the Leicester City have its own way too much?

Mr. Nugent: I think my hon. Friend has shown the difficulty now confronting us, namely, that it is not easy to reconcile the differing points of view, and we are trying to be fair to all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Victoria Line

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) what advice he has received from the London Travel Committee regarding the number of people resident in the boroughs that would be served by the proposed Victoria line on its route from Victoria to Walthamstow;
(2) what advice he has received from the London Travel Committee about the need for major schemes to relieve travel congestion by the improvement of passenger transport schemes in the northeast London area, other than by the provision of the proposed Victoria tube; and if he will make a statement;
(3) what advice he has received from the London Travel Committee regarding the period within which it would be possible to complete the proposed Victoria line tube, in view of the need for speedy action to relieve travel congestion in London.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Members for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 22nd April about the proposed Victoria line. I have no doubt that the committee will take into account other possible developments in North East London.

Mr. Harvey: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not consider that a very strong case has by now been made out for the construction of the Victoria line as the principally effective means of relieving the already heavily overloaded travel facilities in North-East London, and whether he will bear in mind that the longer a start is delayed the longer it will be before this much-needed relief can be given?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with that, but, as the House knows, this issue has been a current one for many years. I am anxiously awaiting the advice of the London Travel Committee, and I shall give it earnest consideration as soon as I get it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Could the Minister first explain to us how something can be current for many years? Apart from that, as this has been under consideration for many years, and the British Transport Commission obtained the authorisation of this House to construct the line, is it not important that some conclusion should be reached shortly, and can he give any indication when the London Travel Committee will make a report to him? Questions have been asked him over a long period about this matter and it is time the Government made up their mind about it.

Mr. Watkinson: As the hon. Gentleman accepts, this has been a matter of current discussion in this House over a number of years. Speaking more seriously, this is a very important decision because, as the House knows, a very large sum of capital is involved and there are the difficulties of making the line pay. That is why I felt that it should be looked at impartially by the London Travel Committee, which has promised me that it will report as soon as it has managed to hear all the many people who want to give evidence. I have undertaken to get a decision as soon as I can after I have received its report.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

s.s. "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth" (Replacement)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) to what extent, since public money is to be spent in financing the


building of the proposed new Cunard liners, the Government expect to be consulted about where they shall be built
(2) when he expects to announce the Government's decision about the financing of the proposed new Cunard liners;
(3) whether, in making his decision about the financing of the proposed new passenger liners, he will bear in mind the facilities available at Harland and Wolff, Belfast, and the high level of unemployment in that city.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 21st April to Questions on this subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin).

Mr. McMaster: I have read the reply which my right lion. Friend gave. Will he give an undertaking that in considering the placing of the orders he will bear in mind the employment position in Belfast, and in particular the capacity of the shipbuilding yards of Harland and Wolff which are at the moment building more passenger liners than any other shipbuilding yard in the country?

Mr. Watkinson: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in part part of the world, but I hope the House clearly understands that at the moment the Government are not committed to the project in any way and cannot be so committed until we have a great deal more information from the Cunard Company.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(COMMISSION TO EXERCISE CONSERVATION AND CONTROL POWERS BY AGREEMENT.)

(1) The Commission may make an arrangement with the approval of the Secretary of State and in agreement with the owners or occupiers of any land under which the Commission may be given complete authority for the conservation and control of red deer on that land and any such arrangement may be for any period of time as may he agreed.

(2) The Commission may employ such gamekeepers or other persons as may be required for the purpose of the foregoing subsection and may provide such housing accommodation and other buildings as may be required.

(3) For the purpose of recouping the Commission for any expenditure incurred in giving effect to an arrangement made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section the Commission may:

(a)agree a sum to be paid to the Commission by the owners or occupiers who enter into the arrangement, and the carcasses of the deer taken on the land by the persons employed by the Commission would be vested in such owners or occupiers; or
(b)make it a condition of the arrangement that the carcasses of the deer taken on the land by the persons employed by the Commission are vested in the Commission; or
(c)make it a condition of the arrangement that the Commission shall have the sole right to offer for let the shooting of deer on the land; or
(d)any combination or variation of the provisions in (a), (b) and (c)

so, however, that the Commission are satisfied that no additional expenditure will fall on public funds by reason of an arrangement made under this section.—[Mr. Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
When the Bill was in its very early stages in another place there was a great deal of controversy took place in the Press about the best manner in which to deal with the problem of red deer in Scotland. One of the proposals then made, and which received a certain amount of support, was that the deer should be vested in the Deer Commission. That would at least settle the question of the ownership of the deer, but it


would also settle a number of other problems. The remedy was suggested so that the Deer Commission itself would be responsible for the conservation and control of deer, for the feeding of deer during the winter—which is not provided for in the Bill—and for damage and compensation, probably the most important omission from the Bill.
That policy was not accepted by the Government, but the Opposition felt that it had a great deal to commend it, and we made a number of suggestions during the Committee stage to try to cover some of the points which I have mentioned. Realising the limited scope of the Bill, we thought the idea still had possibilities and tabled the new Clause, by means of which the Commission would be able to make an arrangement with the owners of land to give it complete authority for the conservation and control of the deer on that land. If arrangements of that character could be made, we should provide a satisfactory answer to the problems which I have mentioned, none of which is dealt with in the Bill and all of which are exceedingly important. It would enlarge the methods by which the Commission can tackle the problem which it is supposed in the Bill to tackle.
In our Clause we suggest that the Commission could, by arrangement, be vested with the control of the deer, that it could make any agreements for that purpose, that to recoup itself for any expenses incurred in carrying out this work it should be able to arrange for the payment of a sum by the owners or occupiers to it for undertaking the work, that it would have the revenue which resulted from sale of carcases and that it would be responsible for the letting of shooting rights. Thus, the Clause ensures that no additional expenditure would fall on the Commission.
We did not discuss this matter at great length during the Committee stage. We made our points, however, and the Joint Under-Secretary said that he did not think the Clause was a bad one—in fact, he thought there were some good things about it—but he put forward certain objections. The first objection was that it would be extending what the Bill sets out to do. The hon. Gentleman gave a very narrow definition of what the Bill does. He said:
But within the limits of this Bill—to prevent damage by surplus deer—one has to consider

carefully a suggestion of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th April, 1959; c. 780.]
Surely the object of the Bill is rather more than to prevent damage caused by surplus deer. The long Title of the Bill says:
An Act to further the conservation and control of red deer…
I should have thought that the Nature Conservancy was most interested in this aspect of the matter when it entered into the agreement reached with the Forestry Commission, the farmers, the landowners and other interests. So the Bill is not confined simply to that purpose.
The Joint Under-Secretary went on to tell us that we should be turning the Commission into a central factorial agency taking over management. I do not know what "central factorial agency" means, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us. We do not deny that it would be extending the powers of the Commission to do a certain thing. It would be allowing the Commission to enter into an agreement to become responsible for the deer in a certain forest. But, indirectly, the Commission has that responsibility now if any damage is caused.
What happens under the Bill? If damage is caused to neighbouring agricultural land, the Commission has the duty of consulting the owners of the land and stopping the damage, and if it cannot reach agreement with the owner. it has the duty of making a scheme to ensure that the damage is stopped and that the stocks are reduced. Once it has been done, there is no guarantee under the Bill that it will not happen again. Why, then, should not the Commission have these slightly larger powers—I should not say they were very much larger—whereby, by agreement, it could be responsible for the deer and stop all the administrative paraphernalia which at present takes weeks and months to achieve the objects which we suggest?
The only other answer of the hon. Gentleman to our proposal was that it would place an additional burden on the Commission. If the Government feel that the Commission already has sufficient to do, we have made it possible in the new Clause for the Government not to approve a scheme until it thinks the


Commission is in a position to undertake the work. We have included the words:
The Commission may make an arrangement with the approval of the Secretary of State…
Therefore, there is no fear of the Commission endeavouring to turn itself into what the Joint Under-Secretary called "a central factorial agency", because the Secretary of State can stop it.
Many people think that what we propose is a good idea. Many people with very great knowledge of these problems and concerned with the conservation of deer, the prevention of damage and the prevention of deer using land which could be used for agricultural purposes, and a host of other problems, have all thought that this is a solution to the problem. If it has merits of that kind, why are the Government afraid to give the Commission this power—subject, of course, always to the approval of the Secretary of State?
It is true that in the first months the Commission might consider that it had enough to do already under the Bill and it might proceed to carry out some of that work, but it might also encounter a situation in which the solution suggested in the new Clause would appear to be the best one and might result in economies to the Commission. In fact. the Commission would carry out a job once and would then continue to exercise its control without incurring financial responsibilities, instead of having to go through the rigmarole under the Bill perhaps two or three times in the course of a few years.
What we propose would be advantageous. It might achieve some of the things most of us would like to see achieved. In particular, it would settle problems upon which, apparently, the interests concerned have not been able to agree. I mentioned the problem of feeding during the winter. There is nothing in the Bill about that. Everyone knows that deer have not been fed in the winter for many years, and that has been one of the reasons why they have come down so much to agricultural land. I suggest that it has also caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering to deer, and the Bill is supposed to prevent suffering to deer. That is one of the reasons why our proposal has been accepted by very

large numbers of people. It would enable the Commission to settle that problem.
It would also enable us to settle the problem of compensation for damage. This is one of the most serious problems in the Highlands. A crofter might have all his crops destroyed in a night. All the Commission is asked to do is to take steps to try to prevent a recurrence. That is too late. The man will already have lost his crops, and he will get no compensation. Anyone familiar with the problem knows that it is one of the greatest difficulties that the agriculturist. the smallholder and the crofter has to face. While the Commission has to try to prevent a recurrence of the loss, there is no provision in the Bill to assist the man who has suffered.
The new Clause would be a step towards solving this problem because the Commission would become responsible. For once we should have decided to whom the deer belonged. At present. they do not belong to anybody. They do not belong to the owner of the land. We had this argument over and over again in Committee. The new Clause would settle this problem and it would enable us to take a few steps towards giving some satisfaction in this very important matter.
I trust that the Secretary of State has considered the new Clause fully and that he will now accept it in view of the fact that we have included the provision that a scheme can be made effective only with his approval.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to second the Motion.

3.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said. when this point was discussed in Committee my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said that it was not an unreasonable proposal. and that he would examine it and see whether there were any ways in which we could meet the points raised by those proposing the Clause.
I can assure the House that we have considered this matter very carefully in the light of what was then said, and on the merits of the arguments put forward and the problems which the Clause presents. The hon. Member put the arguments on both sides very reasonably. He


comes down one way, and I come down the other way, on the balance of argument, for reasons that I will give.
One point that the hon. Member ignored was that the power given to the Commission under the Clause is a power to deal with the stock of deer on the hills. That provision would be virtually impracticable unless all the functions of hill management were combined. That is why my noble Friend used the phrase, "factorial agency." If there is to be proper handling of all the elements going to make up the stock on a hill, then, even if we thought the proposals in the Clause formed a workable proposition, it would not be possible, as I see it, to stop where the Clause stops at present. It would be quite wrong for the Commission to be expected to take on, in addition to its other important functions—which will occupy it fully for some years to come—the sort of hill management which would be necessary if the job were to be properly done.
The hon. Member says that if a scheme is made it will deal with the problem only temporarily, and that there might be a repetition of the scheme. He says that it is possible that one treatment will not deal permanently with the problem. That is unlikely, because the whole object of the Bill is to bring both marauding and colonised deer under control. Once we have done that the problem of marauding deer, and, therefore, of the need for repetition of treatment, should virtually disappear. We must give the Commission a chance to make this part of the Bill work. I do not pretend that it will not take some time.
The hon. Member also mentioned the question of feeding. As the Commission achieves success in solving the problem of colonised deer and of marauding deer the feeding problem will begin to disappear, because stocks will gradually move to the right level. There are voluntary powers for consultation under Clauses 4 and 12. There is power for forest owners to ask the Commission for advice and for the Commission to give it. A voluntary agreement of the kind envisaged in the Clause is already possible under the Bill.
I believe that the problems of getting rid of marauding deer and controlling colonised deer, and of helping forest owners to cull their deer to the right

proportions, can be dealt with by the present provisions.

Mr. Willis: What about compensation?

Mr. Maclay: That is a different problem. It does not arise under this Clause.
We have considered the matter with great care. It is conceivable that circumstances could arise in the distant future when something like this might be desirable, but I do not think that it will be required in this form. I am certain that it would be wrong to include the Clause and I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I am disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech. He said that we could not give the Commission the power proposed in the Clause, because it must have the power to deal with the stock on the hill as a whole. He said that all the elements must be under a single agency. Hon. Members with any knowledge of the north of Scotland must know that he was talking nonsense; and the right hon. Gentleman must know that he was talking nonsense. At present, it is commonplace for the management of the deer to be under a quite separate agency from that which is concerned with the stock on the hill. The hill is let to an agricultural tenant and a sporting tenant. The sporting tenant is concerned with the deer and the agricultural tenant is concerned with the other stock on the hill. Does not the Secretary of State know that that is the position?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will appreciate that control is in the hands of one man—the landlord—who, undoubtedly, will balance the two requirements of the hill against each other. We do have single management. That is the only way to get the best use of the hill for the deer and the stock.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The sporting tenant and the agricultural tenant both have long leases. As some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends said in Committee, the owner of the land is probably in the Bahamas. He probably does not know what is happening on the hill. There are two quite separate agencies at present, one concerned with the conservation and control of deer on the hill and the other with agricultural questions.
In any case, if the Secretary of State believes his own argument he will take Clause 10 out of the Bill, because under that Clause he gives himself the power to enforce control schemes. How can he provide that the Commission shall enforce control schemes when the Commission has no responsibility for the grazing of the hill by sheep and the like?
The report of the committee set up by the Nature Conservancy, on whose recommendations the Bill was based, said, under the heading, "Functions of the Committee":
(1) To continue as far as necessary the present deer survey, carry out research and act as an advisory body in all problems of deer management and conservation.
The Secretary of State has pushed that recommendation aside:
(2) to exercise executive powers of conservation and control.
That is precisely what we provide for in the Clause.
I want to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I have quoted from a document produced by a committee set up by the Nature Conservancy. Everybody knows that the Bill is based upon this document. In Standing Committee, we requested that the document should be made available to hon. Members, but it was not made available, and we did not discuss it any further in Committee. In another place, however, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, Lord Forbes quoted from the document. If hon. Members look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the other place for 18th November last they will see that at column 562 the noble Lord quoted from the document; and he was the Minister in charge of the Bill.
My point is that this was a report of a committee set up by the Nature Conservancy, which itself is a statutory body set up by Act of Parliament. It submitted its report to the Secretary of State and he, having received it, said publicly—as did his colleagues, one of whom was a member of the committee—that the Bill was based upon the report. I have the report here. I ought not to have it, because it is a confidential document, but I would ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether you can advise us later—it is probably too late for the purposes of our deliberations this afternoon—whether a document emanating from a body like the

Nature Conservancy, submitted to the Secretary of State and providing the basis of a Bill, should be made available to hon. Members, especially after a Government spokesman in another place has quoted from it.
The new Clause gives effect to one of the recommendations of the Nature Conservancy committee. I submit that the only reason why we have the Bill at all —and certainly the only reason for Part I—is that owners of deer forests in the North of Scotland have failed lamentably, for a generation, properly to manage their deer forests. That was said in another place by no less a person than a former Minister of State, Lord Strathclyde. He said that it was the failure of the owners that made the Bill necessary. It certainly was the reason for Part I. Incidentally, it created the problem which has made necessary the introduction of Part III. The failure of the owners to manage their deer forests led to the deer coming down from the hills to the roadside, which led to a certain amount of indiscriminate slaughter— so it is alleged—which in turn led to the new penalties imposed in Part III.
Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that it was the failure of the deer forest owners to manage the deer forests which made Part I necessary. What reason is there to believe that just by passing the Bill we will have reformed the forest owners and sporting tenants? Do they have the staff to do this job? I do not think so. If they have, they must be grossly underemployed at the moment. I hardly think they are likely to be paid for a job for which they are underemployed.
The committee set up by the Nature Conservancy made it quite clear that a few stalkers would be needed by the Corn-mission. To do what? Surely to exercise the powers of conservation and control. They are the very powers we provide in the Clause. Will the Secretary of State tell us if he envisages that the Commission will be serviced by a staff such as is recommended by the Nature Conservancy Committee?
Many people who have taken a great interest in the Bill, and who have contributed some very enlightening articles to the newspapers, make the general assumption that there is now to be set up a Commission which will exercise


powers of conservation and control. We are asking that if an owner has been failing for many years to manage his deer forest properly, and he knows that he will not be able to manage his deer forest properly in the future, he should hand over his responsibilities to the Commission, under an arrangement.
4.0 p.m.
The Commission is not obliged to undertake this responsibility if it does not wish to do so. But if it is willing, and the deer forest owner is willing to enter into an arrangement with the Commission, what is the objection of the Secretary of State? In many such cases the other use, the agricultural use, of the land is being looked after by an agricultural tenant. That arrangement will not be altered, except that there might be a little more feed left for the sheep which are being raised by the agricultural tenant, but what is wrong with that?
I cannot understand the Secretary of State. I obtained a copy of this mysterious document at a rather late period in the proceedings of the Standing Committee which discussed the Bill. I was shocked to find that the right hon. Gentleman had departed so far from the recommendations of the committee which prepared this document without there being a single murmur of protest from the hon. Member for Argyle (Mr. M. Noble), who proudly proclaimed at an earlier stage that he was a member of the committee.
I see from this document that he was a member, and is one of the signatories of this now famous report in which appear certain recommendations that have been completely ignored by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward other recommendations. It passes my comprehension why the hon. Member for Argyll should say that this Bill is based on the report which he signed, without calling attention to those grave omissions in its text. It would seem to me that the hon. Member for Argyll has not been altogether fair to the farmers he represents.
This afternoon we are concerned with this proposed new Clause. I hope that the House will regard the problem of the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland as something which should be

tackled with urgency. The last point made by the Secretary of State, that the question of compensation does not arise under this Clause, is not altogether valid. because it could arise. Were the Commission to assume responsibility for the conservation and control of red deer in an area, and a nearby agricultural owner or tenant suffered damage caused by red deer, he would find it easier to convince a court that the deer came from the area for which the Commission was responsible than that they came from a particular deer forest, as he must do at present.
Therefore, were this Clause accepted and the Commission allowed to make certain arrangements to exercise such a function in the future, the farmers and crofters in the North of Scotland, who are suffering great damage at present, would know that steps were being taken to protect them.
The right hon. Gentleman need not smile. There is a proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper which we shall not be debating this afternoon. A similar Clause appeared on the Notice Paper during the proceedings in the Standing Committee and it was not debated then. Only one thing prevents that Clause from being debated. It is that the Secretary of State has omitted to put a Ways and Means Resolution before the House to enable this new tax—which is what it would be—to be imposed on the occupiers and owners of deer forest land—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]. What is the matter?
The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that he would like to deal with the question of compensation. I am suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman, and to hon. Members opposite that had he wished to do that he could have done so under the terms of the new Clause which appears on the Notice Paper but which we cannot discuss.
If we accept this Clause, it will be much easier for a lot of farmers in Scotland to obtain compensation than has been the case in the past. I hope that the House will insist upon its acceptance.

Mr. J. Grimond: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say a word or two in this debate. I was criticised during the Standing Committee proceedings for failing to be a


member of that Committee or speaking. As I was not a member, it would have been peculiar had I spoken during its proceedings. In point of fact, I had no right to be a member of it. However, I find it all rather flattering, because I recall the words of a very wise old Member of the House who said to me when I first became a Member, Never complain when people say, 'Why did you not speak in that debate? 'But look out when they say, 'Why did you speak in that debate?'"
My constituency long ago freed itself of deer and I have no direct experience of this matter. But having listened to the arguments about this proposed new Clause, and read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the Standing Committee, it seems to me that the Clause has merits. The Secretary of State today, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State during the Committee stage proceedings, have no; rejected it out of hand. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the proposal was not unreasonable, and this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that some time in the future something like this might be conceivable.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): What I said during the Committee stage proceedings was that it was not unreasonable per se —which is a different thing from saying that it is not unreasonable, in the context in which that statement is now offered.

Mr. Grimond: This is becoming a refined philosophical argument. If it is not unreasonable per se it might not be unreasonable in this context. But this is a refined argument, and if he wishes to pursue it the Joint Under-Secretary may find himself in difficulty about language—especially as the language appears to be Latin.
This afternoon the Secretary of State has said that this might be a useful Clause. Its provisions are permissive. There is no question of laying any obligation on the Commission, which must come to the Secretary of State for approval and act with the agreement of the owner. If there is some chance that at a future date these provisions may be necessary I should have thought that there was something to be said for including the Clause in the Bill now. As I say, I have little direct experience of

this problem but, in common with all who have the interests of the Highlands at heart, I have followed what has been said about it.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)—I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about me when I was criticised during the Committee stage proceedings—has pointed out that people interested in nature conservation are concerned about the present state of the Bill and some of the points they make might be met by the inclusion of this Clause. There are certain areas in the Highlands where this might be the only way to deal with the question of direct control, preservation and winter feed and, indeed, with the question of compensation.
I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not take the point that the provisions of this Clause would be difficult to implement. It seemed to me that to do so would need a bigger staff than is visualised for the Commission, and be an extension of the duties which it is proposed to place upon the Commission.

Mr. Maclay: I mentioned that this went beyond what it was visualised that the Commission would do, and I think that the acceptance of the Clause would create a difficult task for the Commission to perform. My remarks about the future were intended to convey that there might be circumstances in the future in which such provisions would be useful. But we cannot foretell what changes in circumstances will take place, and I do not visualise any such situation arising either in the near or middle future.

Mr. Grimond: If it be the view of the Secretary of State that there is something to be said for having this Clause in the Bill, I should have thought there is something to be said for putting it in now.

Mr. John Rankin: I feel sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the Bill envisages some form of organisation for the Commission. Although, so far, he has refused to accept the new Clause, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to believe that there would be a loose form of organisation for the Commission. There will be some kind of headquarters and some kind of staff. The work which the Commission will do must entail a staff, because it will have moneys to collect and distribute.


That means that there would require to be an inside organisation.
We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to look at the outside work of the Commission. Taking the majority report as a guide, we are told according to the latest estimate that there are 82,000 deer in the Highlands of Scotland. I agree that that figure is not very clear because some people consider that it applies to the whole of Scotland. But whether or not that be the case, it gives us some idea of the number of deer to be dealt with. It is suggested that that number should be reduced to about 50,000. That would demand a definite outside organisation. It could not be done by casual work. It would be a big job. We are asking that:
The Commission may employ such gamekeepers or other persons as may be required for the purpose".
It seems that that is a sequence of the organisation which the Secretary of State has in mind. If he accepts that organisation, he must accept the idea of outside agencies. He rested his defence on Clause 4. These are his outside agencies. The owner of the land is the person who is to become the agent of the Commission, not an established person, but the person who will be advised in the interests of conservation on questions relating to the carrying of stocks of red deer on the land. The right hon. Gentleman is dependent on the owner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has pointed out, for a generation we have been unable to depend on the owner at all. Because of that, the problem which faces us has now to be dealt with—in my view somewhat ineffectually—in this Bill. The Commission is given the second function to collaborate with any person conducting an inquiry or investigation.
I suggest that is a form of organisation which is rather loosely framed. The job is bringing the red deer population down to a number, which has not been stated, but which, in the minds of most people, represents the slaughter of about 30.000 red deer.

Mr. Willis: More.

Mr. Rankin: I agree that it may be more because friends of mine who live near deer forests put the present number of deer at 150,000. I have letters to that

effect. If we are aiming at 50,000 as the future population the Commission will have a job of great magnitude if it is to be done in a reasonable time and to bring consequential benefits to agriculture and forestry in the North of Scotland. About 100,000 deer must be disposed of.

Mr. Willis: Mass slaughter.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: Of course it is mass slaughter. That is the job which the Secretary of State is handing over to the owners of deer forests in Scotland. Those are the people on whom he is to depend. I am certain that no hon. Member opposite who is interested in the problem agrees with the Secretary of State on this issue. I invite the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. M. Noble), who knows a great deal about it, to say whether he regards that as a workable operation within a time which will have any significance in the further development of the Highlands.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State turned to Clause 12, which says:
The Commission may by agreement with any owner or occupier of land assist in or undertake,… a control scheme…".
Again, the right hon. Gentleman is turning to the individual who for years has failed the fanner, the crofter and the people of Scotland concerned in the production of food. That is the type of person upon whom the Secretary of State rests his case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman, most amazingly, forgets Clause 10. It is rather astonishing that he should forget that Clause, which tells us that
If the Commission are of the opinion that any owner or occupier of land upon whom a requirement is laid by a control scheme has failed to carry out that requirement, it shall be the duty of the Commission to carry out the requirement if they are satisfied that it is still necessary so to do.
What instrument is it to use? It must have men such as those mentioned in the new Clause, of the type and quality to be able to do the work. That is what the Secretary of State is refusing. He says that we are to have a scheme of conservation and control. We accept that and ask him to create methods by which the scheme can work. He says he will create the methods. The "methods"


are the owners and those who all their lives have had this power—whose fathers and grandfathers had it before them—but who have failed to exercise it.
The right hon. Gentleman says he will depend upon them. He forgets that in his own Bill, in Clause 10, he admits that they may fail in future, as they have failed in the past. We ask him if he will take steps to ensure that if they fail the Commission shall do what they are not doing. If he accepts that, he must create the force and have the men qualified to carry out the job.

Mr. Michael Noble: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member is shaking his head from side to side. That means that he disputes what I am saying. In that event, I am sure that he has the time, and will have the interest of the House, to give reasons why he disagrees with the new Clause. I am sure that he will take the chance now offered him by his disagreement with my argument to show wherein we have failed in putting forward a logical case for this new Clause, which, to my extreme surprise, the Secretary of State has not accepted.
I thought that in the period of meditation unfortunately forced upon him, the Secretary of State—whom we are glad to see back again today—would do that thinking for which Ministers repeatedly say they cannot find time. Ministers have told us that the trouble about their job is that they have no time to think. We can accept that as a rule under the present Government, but the Secretary of State has had time to do so. I thought that during that period he might have meditated over some of the sins of omission in this Bill of which this is one. We are presenting him with the chance of doing the right thing by accepting this new Clause. I hope that he will do so and I hope we shall hear arguments from hon. Gentlemen opposite to show any weakness in the new Clause.

Mr. M. Noble: I was asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) to help the House a little over the difficulty he was posing. Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House we had lengthy discussions as to how many deer there might be in Scotland. No Member of this House, or of another place, can give an accurate or useful

estimate, but I suggest that before we discuss the question of slaughtering 50,000, 60,000, 80,000, or 120,000 deer, we might remember that the control of any form of animal life of this sort can be carried out fairly successfully by the biological method of controlling the number of females there are to breed. If that is done carefully, the sort of numbers which the hon. Member has been mentioning need not be a bogy to frighten anyone. It may take a few years to do it, but it can be done scientifically and adequately in that way.

Mr. A. Woodburn: This matter has been argued very effectively and I am sure that the Secretary of State is beginning to see that there were reasons for this Clause which he did not see at first. In Committee, we had considerable difficulty in finding how the Commission was to deal with the problem of deer on the hills where there are several owners. It may be that one owner will ask the Commission for advice and guidance while the owner next door will not ask for that advice and guidance.
We were advised by experts such as the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. M. Noble) that we cannot draw an easy line between the deer of one forest and the deer of another because they are inclined to wander. It may be that when the Commission deals with these owners, the owners may think the best way would be for a third party to deal with the question of conservation of deer. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary has agreed that from that point of view this Clause is a reasonable one. The Secretary of State has given us one of his principal objections that it might be difficult to work and that in the Bill it is perhaps not appropriate to give the Commission these powers. It seems that that argument is entirely disposed of by the fact that the Commission need not take the powers.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out that if the Commission does not find it reasonable or practicable to do this work, it does not need to do it. If the owners do not agree that it is desirable and practicable, they will not do it, but, if the owners and the Commission agree, and it is no financial burden to the State, it is difficult to see why the Secretary of State should not allow this power to be embodied in the Bill.
It may be that it will not be used until the time he foresees, ten or fifteen years' hence, but it is not easy to get legislation like this through the House. I should have thought that the time for putting a sensible proposition like this into a Bill is now, so that when the time comes for the power to be used it will be there. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman shows so little confidence in its Commission and thinks that if it is given a power of this kind it will run riot. The first purpose of the Bill is the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland. If that is the main purpose of the Bill, it is a reasonable proposition that this power should be included.
We have a number of Amendments to discuss and we want to devote some time to each of them, and it would facilitate business if, having listened to the discussion and, I am sure, having been convinced by it, the Secretary of State would end the discussion by accepting the new Clause. I ask him to show the reasonableness which the Joint Under-Secretary of State showed in Committee and, having been convinced of the reasonableness of the Clause, will include the power in the Bill, even though it may not be immediately necessary, so that the Commission may use it when the time comes. If he does not show this reasonableness I hope that the House will encourage him to do so by voting for the Clause.

Lord John Hope: Deliberately, in Committee, I paid tribute to the common sense of the Amendment moved by hon. Members of the Clause of itself—if I may use that phrase for the benefit of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The hon. Member does not like the phrase per se. I do not know what it is in Erse and we must, therefore, stick to the words "of itself".
The House must judge whether these powers should be given in the context of what the Bill sets out to do. I do not think that anything which we have heard in Ole arguments advanced from the other side of the House leads us to suppose that it would be wise to take this risk —because it would be a risk—of imposing on the Commission a burden which, in the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to impose upon it. As my right hon. Friend said, and as I pointed

out in Committee, no one can foresee far into the distant future the problems of the Highlands and their management.
The Bill has several definite objectives and it is in those terms that we must consider whether it gives the Commission sufficient power and imposes upon it sufficient reasonable burdens for it to carry out what the Bill sets out to do. It is in those terms that once again I commend our advice to the Committee that in the interests of the Bill the new Clause ought to be rejected.
I could not understand exactly what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was getting at. He seemed to be arguing for some form of compulsive sanction against recalcitrant owners. but the Opposition's new Clause is couched in purely voluntary terms. As for any compulsion which is necessary against owners who will not co-operate in this work of the prevention of damage and conservation of deer, the Bill is full of sanctions against owners who will not do what they are bound to do under it. To that extent, therefore, the whole of his argument and some other arguments were either redundant or missed the point. The new Clause is not necessary.

Mr. Rankin: I was trying to make the point—evidently unsuccessfully as far as the noble Lord is concerned, although I know that he has had a lot to do in recent months—that the Secretary of State rested his case in respect of getting rid of marauding and colonising deer on Clauses 4 and 12. I reminded him that Clause 10 provided him with the sort of controls which we want to see operating.

Lord John Hope: The Clauses mentioned by the hon. Member refer to advice which can be taken. As for the compulsion which can be exercised, there are Clauses 6 and 7, which, in the interval of time since the Committee, he may have overlooked. I commend them to him.
I feel that it would be wise if we did not impose this extra duty upon the Commission, however voluntary the request for it might be from the owners concerned, because it will give the Commission much more to do and, with respect, it does not seem to me in any way to help the Commission to do what we want them to do as soon as possible.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry that the Ministers have lot seen fit to accept the very reasonable new Clause. The reasons which they have advanced are not very good. If they read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate tomorrow, I think that they themselves will come to that conclusion.
The noble Lord said that the new Clause imposed a burden an the Commission. It cannot do anything of the kind, because the Commission would not have to do a single thing unless it wished to do it. Ii is difficult to impose a burden on anybody if he is told at the same time that he need do nothing about it unless he wishes to take steps to do so.

The Clause, if accepted, would be the only Clause in the Bill which endeavoured to carry out the first purposes of the Bill —the conservation and control of deer. No other Clause does that. It is well within the scope of the Bill. The arguments advanced by the Joint Under-Secretary were very poor. We on this side of the House are not satisfied with the Government's arguments and we shall have to divide the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 204.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[4.32 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Albu, A. H.
Hilton, A. V.
Parker, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hobson, C. R. (Kelghley)
Paton, John


Awbery, S. S.
Holmes, Horace
Pearson, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pentland, N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Royle, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. H. M.
Snow, J. W.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McCann, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thornton, E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mahon, Simon
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, D. W.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Warbey, W. N.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mathew, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Willey, Frederick


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Neath)


Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grimond, J.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Richard


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.
Woof, R. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.



Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbison, Miss M.
Padley, W. E.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)


Alport, C. J. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William
Green, A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Osborne, C.


Ashton, H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Page, R. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Gurden, Harold
Partridge, E.


Barber, Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, W. J.


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Batsfortd, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bidgood, J. C.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hope, Lord John
Ridsdale, J. E.


Body, R. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Howard, John (Test)
Robertson, Sir David


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Braine, B. R.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roper, Sir Harold


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brewis, John
Hyde, Montgomery
Russell, R. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bryan, P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, R. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Butler, Rt. Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chichester-Clark, R.
Keegan, D.
Speir, R. M.


Cole, Norman
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Storey, S.


Corfield, F. V.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Leburn, W. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, Hon, Peter (Petersfield)
Temple, John M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Davidson, Viscountess
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, R. (Groydon, S.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vane, W. M. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Duncan, Sir James
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Erroll, F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Farey-Joncs, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fell, A.
Maitland, Cdr.J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, D.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Woollam, John Victor


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, G. D. N.



Cough, C. F. H.
Nairn, D. L. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, H. R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Mr. Brooman-White and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF RED DEER COMMISSION.)

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after "crofters", to insert:
and of the persons so appointed at least one shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests of farmers, and at least one shall represent the interests of crofters".

The effect of this Amendment will be to ensure that the Secretary of State will appoint separate representatives of farming and crofting interests. Those Members of the House who were members of the Committee will recall that I undertook in February to consider whether we


should or could do this, and I hope the House will agree that this Amendment meets the point that was raised.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: We are grateful that the Government have accepted in some small measure the suggestion we put forward that crofters should be represented on this Commission, but I am rather disturbed by the very limited representation that is being given. After all, crofters are receiving only one-twelfth of the representation.
Let us look at the composition of the Commission. There are to be two members who are nominees of the Nature Conservancy, and I have no objection to that. Indeed, I have no objection to any of the other representation. Then there are to be three other nominees of
owners of land used for agriculture or forestry.
That is a roundabout way of saying the Scottish Landowners' Federation. Indeed, if my recollection is right the document which has already been referred to puts it in under that name. Then there are two other nominees to
represent the sporting interest in deer.
That is just the British Field Sports Society. Indeed, its name was also included in the document.
The British Field Sports Society, I understand from information which the noble Lord kindly gave to me, appears to be substantially the same body of people as the Scottish Landowners' Federation. It operates from the same address, it has the same chairman and a number of the same committee members. Then there come three other nominees of those representing farmers and crofters, and that, I take it, means the N.F.U. There are two others from what are, in effect, the breeders of black-faced sheep.
Is it really suggested that the crofters are only one-twelfth as numerous as these other classes? I should have thought that in the Highlands of Scotland the most numerous class of person was that of the crofters. Would the Secretary of State agree with that? If that is so, their representation of one-twelfth cannot be on a numerical basis. Is it suggested that they are only entitled to one-twelfth of the representation because they have

only one-twelfth of the interests of others? Surely not. The livelihood of a crofter depends upon his land and his crops, and his crops depend upon there being no marauding or colonising deer; indeed, no deer coming down upon his holding. Therefore, it cannot be that.
Is it suggested that they have only one-twelfth of the knowledge of deer and of what deer can do which these other classes have? It cannot be that, surely, because if any man knows about the damage done by deer—and, after all, this is a bill intended, among other things, to prevent damage being done to agriculture and crofting land—the crofter has more knowledge than any other person. Is it suggested that this House is interested only to one-twelfth in the crofter in the Highlands? We all know that rehabilitation in the Highlands depends on the crofters and upon the rehabilitation of crofting.
In these circumstances, may I ask what circumstances dictated that the crofters should have only a one-twelfth representation on the Commission? The only circumstance that occurs to me is that the crofters were not signatories to this document which has been so often referred to, but that is not surprising. After all, the crofters' interest is substantially different from, and indeed often opposed to, the interests of the Scottish Landowners' Federation. It is often opposed to the interests of the British Field Sports Society, and indeed, it is often opposed to the interests of the larger farmer and the sheep farmer.
4.45 p.m.
I wonder why it was that a representative of the crofters was not invited to attend this meeting. It is not possible for the Secretary of State to say that he was not responsible for the meeting, and that it was called by the Nature Conservancy, because I see that the first line of this document says:
Following the invitation of the then Minister of State (Lord Home) this meeting was called.
In these circumstances, what possible grounds can there be for limiting the representation of crofters on this vital Commission, which is to do so much in the Highlands—so much upon which the crofters' livelihood depends? Why, in


these circumstances, should they be limited to the one-twelfth representation? Perhaps the Secretary of State will enlighten the House on this point, and tell us what dictated that the representation of the crofters should be no more than one-twelfth.

Mr. John MacLeod: I am very pleased indeed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to put this extra representation on the Commission.
I sympathise with quite a lot of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), but the hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that one crofter is worth twelve of the others, and I can assure him that a crofter, provided that he is representative of the crofting community, will be well worthy and well able to put the case for the crofters. I am only too glad that it has been decided to have such representation on the Commission, and I congratulate the Opposition on the part which they have played in this matter. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has seen fit to agree to it.

Mr. Grimond: I share some of the misgivings which have been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), though I am glad to see the crofters recognised as being important. I wish to ask one or two questions which, perhaps, the Secretary of State will not be in a position to answer immediately, though I hope that at some point he will be able to tell us which way his thoughts are moving.
When the right hon. Gentleman refers to crofters, does he mean crofters strictly so-called, and not owner-occupiers of smallholdings? If that is so, I want to ask him how his representation of the crofters is to be chosen. What has he in mind? Does he mean a crofter, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. MacLeod) seemed to imply, or is he thinking in terms possibly of somebody from the Crofters' Commission, who may not even be a crofter? The Amendment does not say that the man who is to represent the interests of crofters must himself be a crofter. Will he, in fact, be a crofter, or will he be chosen from some other body representing crofting interests?
Secondly, I should like to know whether there is a distinction drawn here between

crofters, strictly so-called, and all other owner-occupiers who will, I take it, be covered by the term "farmers". There is some diversion of interest between the very small smallholder and the big farmer. The smallholder often feels nearer to the crofter than to the big farmer, and his interests should not be overlooked. They are occasionally overlooked because the farmers' organisations, I think, with the best will in the world, tend to represent the bigger farmers, and to overlook the man who is in between the crofter and the biggish farmer.

Mr. Maclay: Replying, first, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I should not like this afternoon to attempt to define precisely who is to be asked to represent any particular category. The Secretary of State's job is to find someone who can most adequately represent the crofters' view, and that is as far as I can properly go this afternoon.
As to the small farmer—and here I deal also with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston)—we have to remember the three representatives
… from nominees of such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of farmers and crofters;…
Farmers and crofters have many interests in common. In the whole balance of deciding the composition of the Commission it is quite clear that one looks on farmers as having interests in common with crofters, but we have added the crofters' representative because we recognised that there was a specific interest there which should be specifically represented. However, I do not think that this balance is in any way loaded against any section of the farming community —farmer, smallholder, or crofter.
Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) has said, the crofter is very well able to speak for himself, and will have good company when he is speaking. Therefore, I think that it is a fairly good balance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(APPOINTMENT OF PANELS.)

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out from the beginning to "may" and to insert:
five persons, being a chairman and four other members, two of whom shall, in the


opinion of the Commission, be representative of the interests mentioned in heads (b) and (c), and two of the interests in heads (d) and (e) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, and of any such panel as aforesaid three shall be a quorum.
(2) The Commission".
The effect of this Amendment, and the one following it, leave out lines 23 to 27 —which, again, have been put down in response to requests from both sides of the Committee—is to alter the membership of a panel from a minimum of three to the fixed number of five, to provide for the appointment of a chairman for each panel, to secure that the four other members are drawn equally from the landowning and sporting interests on the one hand and the farming and crofting interests on the other, and to fix a quorum of three. I very much hope that, again, the Committee will agree that this is right.

Mr. T. Fraser: Though it was right to increase the number serving on a panel from three to five. I hope that hon. Members will agree that, in the first place, it is wrong to have a Commission that is evenly balanced. It is wrong, also, that a panel should be equally balanced, as the Joint Under-Secretary has made clear it will be, as between the landowning and sporting interests on the one hand and the agricultural and crofting interests on the other.
The Government seem determined that, first, the Commission, and now a panel. will never be able to do anything because there will be an equal weight of opinion between the sporting interests, the agricultural interests— and, perhaps, the forestry interests. That is to say, the voices of those who want to conserve deer in the interests of sport will always be at least equal in number to the voices of those who want to see better use made of land in Scotland.
The committee on whose recommendations this Bill was based said that it wanted the Commission to have the power to exterminate colonised deer on land which the Commission recognised as being agricultural, and wanted it to be able to decide whether or not land was agricultural. The Government have rejected all such propositions that have conic from this side, and it is very much to be regretted. They have rejected the proposition that the Commission, and the

panels, should exercise discretion as to which land should be used for agriculture and which for sport.
I think that the panels will deal, in the main, with the marauding deer—the deer that have clearly been seen to come from the proper deer forest areas and to be consuming the crops of farmers and crofters. Those animals will also be consuming the young trees publicly owned by the Forestry Commission—and it must be remembered that in recent times the Forestry Commission has spent a fortune of the taxpayers' money, as the Secretary of State himself told me in a letter that I received from him the other week. The panels should he protecting our trees from the damage done by the marauding deer.
What the Government are doing now is to make quite certain that for every voice of those people on the panels. who may want to take steps against marauding deer—the people with an interest in afforestation, or the crofters whose crops are being eaten—there will be at least one voice in support of the landowning and sporting interests. Yet the Joint Under-Secretary really went so far as to offer this Amendment to us as a good thing, and something that ought to be accepted.
We think that the whole conception is wrong. There should have been a Commission composed of people who would have applied their energies single-mindedly to dealing with the damage done by red deer; and would have undertaken the work of conservation where conservation is desirable. They should have been assisted by panels, equally single-minded in their approach to their statutory work.
The Government, however, have decided that there must be this balance of interest all along the line, with the chairman exercising his casting vote after listening to the arguments in favour of reducing the numbers of deer or exterminating the deer and to the arguments of those in favour of preserving the deer in the interests of the so-called sportsmen. I use the word "so-called "advisedly, because I do not think that the person who conserves these animals just for the joy of going out and killing them is a sportsman at all. As I say, the chairman will have to listen to the two opposing arguments, and finally make up his mind.
I would rather see the panels manned by people who would apply themselves a little more single-mindedly and objectively to the tasks that lie ahead.

5.0 p.m.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I do not think that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) does full justice to the composition of these panels. I think that we can rely on the five persons appointed to take a general view and, although their backgrounds may be to one side or the other, we can rely on them to give fair justice. The chairman of the panel, as I understand, is to be a man who is not committed to either side.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Hamilton was correct in suggesting that while two of the members would be representing agriculture and the crofters, the other two members would be representing the sporting interest. As I read the Clause, two of the members will represent (d) and (e), and (d) and (e) are farmers and crofters and crofters and hill sheep farmers. The other two members are to represent (b) and (c) although it is the fact that (c) represents the sporting interests in deer and the representatives of (b) are drawn from nominees of such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of owners of land used for agriculture and forestry.
If the hon. Member is thinking there are a number of members of that body who are infinitely keener on agriculture and afforestation than they are on sport, and in particular on sport concerned with dear—

Mr. T. Fraser: Did not the hon. and gallant Member listen to what the noble Lord said? In commending the Amendment to the House the noble Lord made it clear that by providing for two of the members of the panel to come under (b) and (c), and two to come under (d) and (e), he was providing a proper balance of the conflicting interests. It was the Joint Under-Secretary of State who made the point.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am basing my argument on the Bill and what is contained in the Amendment we are discussing. As I understood my noble Friend, he meant to ensure that all

interests were represented. The hon. Member is not correct in saying that there will be two representatives for the sportsmen against two representatives for agriculture, because of the two that he is regarding as representing sportsmen he will find one who is every bit as much interested in agriculture and forestry as in sporting interests.

Mr. Willis: I want to thank the Joint Under-Secretary for at least having increased the numbers. At the same time, I would like to protest against the composition of the Commission and the panels. There are 20,000 crofters in the Highlands and there is no guarantee that there will be a crofter on any of these panels.
The Clause that has been moved provides that there will be two representatives of the interests mentioned under heads (b) and (c). As I read it, they both seem to be representing sporting interests. Of the two representing the interests of (d) and (e), both may be large farmers, or one may be a large farmer and the other a large hill sheep farmer.
This is really an astonishing performance on the part of the Government —the manner in which they have dodged around to ensure that the vested interests attached to this business of deer are protected. The Government have gone to enormous lengths to see that no steps are taken that will annoy the deer. I do not know why they have done this, but I have a shrewd suspicion that this is traditionally the correct position for the Government to take. We cannot allow the Government to do this without drawing attention to that fact, and I should have liked to have seen the noble Lord at least guaranteeing that on these panels there would be a crofter in crofting areas.
We seem to be ignoring the section of the population that is most numerous, and, incidentally, the section which suffers the greatest damage, because we are here dealing with people with very small acreages, where any damage at all is very serious. We are not dealing with people with large acreages who can afford a certain amount of damage, but with people who can afford to suffer no damage at all. I deplore this attitude and it is right that we should protest, though, at the same time, we can do nothing further at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Maclay: I cannot let what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said go without some comment. The hon. Member must accept that people will be reasonable, and if there is a part of the country where there is a predominant Interest the panel will consider whether it should be a farmer or crofter who comes on to the panel.
The other point is the charge about the interests of only one section of the community being considered. This is nonsense. If one looked at this in the context of the Bill, one would find that we have set out to get the best balance and see that every section has its proper representation and that all the interests of the Highlands are looked after. I cannot accept what the hon. Member said.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 23 to 27.—[Lord John Hope.]

Clause 5.—(RETURNS OF NUMBERS OF DEER KILLED.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, at the end to insert:
and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment".
This is one of the Amendments relating to penalties. There are a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper and it might be convenient if, before I move the Amendment, I said a word or two about the position of penalties in the Bill.
As the House knows, some Bills have a general Clause applicable to all offences, and some Bills have a general Clause and some particular Clauses. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, about which we heard so much in Committee, was a case in point. In some Bills—and this is an example of that— each offence has its own penalty Clause.
In Committee, it was clear that the Opposition took the view that some of our penalties were too severe and some were not severe enough. The Committee agreed, and think, rightly, that it would be desirable to look at all the penalties at the end of the day in order to get a reasonable balance between them. I think that we agreed mutually to take

penalties to avizandum and we have come to deliver our views on penalties in general.
Broadly speaking, the Opposition's suggestions in Committee were that the penalties in Part I, the part of the Bill dealing with the Commission making returns and the like, were not severe enough and they wanted to step them up. On the other hand, the Opposition thought that the penalties in Parts II and III were too high and they wanted, if I may coin a phrase, "to step them down a little".
We have anxiously considered the views of the Opposition and we have been able to meet them to some extent, because the result is that we find on the Notice Paper only two counter Amendments so far as penalties are concerned. I shall not deal with them at present, but we find later that the Opposition still think that the penalties in two of the later Clauses are rather too high and wish them to be reduced a little.
I come now to this particular Amendment, in which the Government suggest that we should add to Clause 5 the words
and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisoment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment".
Those words have the effect of stepping up a penalty in Part I. We go even further than the Opposition wanted in regard to a second offence. The offence is failing to make a return. Normally. failing to make a return may not be a very serious offence. A great many people fail to make returns, but they must not go on failing to make returns, otherwise the whole operation will be held up. Therefore, the Government have suggested the insertion of these words at the end of Clause 5.
These are maximum penalties. Normally, a person will not go to prison for an offence of this kind, but if he is stubborn and will not make returns in an extreme case a little of "Her Majesty's pleasure" might well do him some good.

Mr. D. Johnston: I wish to say a word about the general question of penalties to which the Lord Advocate has referred. Hon. Members on this side are very much obliged for the careful consideration which the Government have obviously given to the suggestions we put forward in Committee. The method of dealing


with penalties suggested by the Lord Advocate is much the best one. As lie said, at this stage of the Bill it is clear that there are only two or three points on which the Opposition differ from him about penalties.
We welcome the Amendment, though not with the idea that the penalty will ever be imposed, because I hope that no penalty will ever be imposed under any Clause of the Bill. If there is a failure to make a return, or if, as the Clause also specifies, someone knowingly or recklessly furnishes false information, it is proper that there should be this somewhat heavy penalty imposed upon the maker of the false return. I thank the Lord Advocate again for the consideration he has given to the question of penalties.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(POWER OF COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH MARAUDING DEER.)

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, at beginning to insert:
Subject to the following provisions of this section".
Will it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take with this Amendment the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, in page 3, line 34, to leave out from "authorization" to "any" in line 35, which deals with the same point and is consequential?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Yes.

Lord John Hope: These are drafting Amendments. The provisions in Clause 6 (1) for authorising persons to kill marauding deer are subject to the provisions which require the Commission to attempt in appropriate cases to arrange for the owner or shooting tenant to carry out the killing voluntarily. The later provisions are at present contained in Clause 6 (2), but will, by a later Amendment, he contained in subsections (2) and (3). The draftsman has taken the opportunity not only to amend the reference to subsection (2), but also to alter the position of the qualification and thereby give it more prominence. I hope that the House will agree that this is a tidying Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.1959.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. D. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out "substantial".
Will it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to deal also with the next Amendment, in page 3, line 31, after "land", to insert:
exceeding in amount the sum of one shilling per acre of the area over which it extends".
These two Amendments go together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Johnston: The House will know that Clause 6 empowers the Commission to take steps to deal with marauding deer. Marauding deer are deer which come down from the hills, go on to farm land and do damage. As the Clause stands, the Commission is empowered to deal with those marauding deer only if the damage is substantial. I suggest that it is inadvisable to have adjectives or adverbs in Acts of Parliament, unless those adjectives or adverbs are absolutely necessary and can be precisely defined.
"Substantial" is like "habitual", which was deleted at an earlier stage. It is not easy to define. Indeed, in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. IV, "substantial" is defined as
A word of no fixed meaning. It is an unsatisfactory medium for carrying the idea of some ascertainable proportion of the whole.
Stroud contains a note of 20 cases in which "substantial" has to be construed by the courts.
I do not know how the Commission would construe "substantial". It might think that if deer came on land they must necessarily damage the land simply by stepping on it. On the other hand, the Commission might take the view that damage was not "substantial" unless half the crop was eaten. We have no knowledge of how the Commission would construe "substantial" and, therefore, I suggest that the word should be deleted and that we should guide the Commission in what shall be the determining factor of whether it shall deal with marauding deer.
That brings me to the second of the Amendments, which, in effect, defines the circumstances in which the Commission should deal with marauding deer. It


defines the circumstances by specifying that if the damage exceeds in amount
the sum of one shilling per acre of the area over which it extends
it may authorise the killing.
This is not an idea of my own, but is taken word for word from Section 15 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, which says that, if damage to the extent of 1s. per acre of the area over which the damage extends is done, that entitles the crofter to make a complaint to the landlord, to have an arbiter appointed and the damage assessed. I suggest that that is a satisfactory definition. It gives something on which the Commission can decide.
Some people may think that 1s. is too high and that damage to a very much less amount should entitle the Commission to determine that the deer are marauding deer and, therefore, deal with them. I can see that point of view. On the other hand, other people may think that 1s. is too low and that nothing less than damage to the extent of 2s. 6d. per acre, or even 5s. per acre, over the area on which the damage is done is a satisfactory amount. I can see that there are arguments. As I have said, I have taken 1s. from the earlier Act because that was the point at which Parliament determined in 1949 that damage was substantial.
I suggest that we should delete "substantial" and that we want to define and tell the Commission in what circumstances it is to act. It is especially necessary that this should be done, because, after all, the marauding deer will be dealt with, in most cases, by the panels. I do not know how many panels there will be, but at a guess I should say there will be from 15 to 30. It would be unsatisfactory if a panel in Caithness were to adopt a different standard of marauding damage, if I may use that expression, from that adopted by a panel in Argyll. This would necessarily occur unless the Commission itself were to determine what the marauding damage standard was to be.
If it is suggested that it should be left to the Commission to decide the marauding damage standard and give directions to the panel, would it not be far better for Parliament itself to do it? I suggest, therefore, that the Amendments should be accepted.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lord John Hope: When we discussed this matter in Committee we had a long and interesting debate about it. As I recollect, both sides of the Committee felt, on the whole, that there had to be some guidance to the Commission. The argument was really about what the guidance should be. Criticism was levelled against the word "substantial" very much in the same terms as those used by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) this afternoon. I cannot remember whether, on that occasion he fortified himself with the quotation. I rather think that he did. It certainly shows up the defects when one comes down to minute definition of the word "substantial".
The difficulty has been to find anything better. One hon. Member opposite suggested that the word "material" would be preferable. On consideration, we felt that that was really no better than "substantial". The point is that the Commission obviously is not required—the House would not require it—to deal with trivial and wholly unimportant damage. One starts really by saying to the Commission, "Do not deal with trivial damage which does not matter, but deal with damage which does matter". That is how we came to adopt this word which the dictionary has described as unsatisfactory. Whatever the dictionary may say, I suggest to the House that a body of reasonable men such as the panels and the Commission will know, by the words we are putting in, that the House does not intend trivial damage to be taken into account.
If we can guide the panels to that extent, we shall do all we need to do, without trying to pin them down too finely. If we were to try to give a finer definition such as the definition of damage which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, we should run the risk of trying to set a detailed standard for a country where many parts have conditions totally different from what they are in others. That would be one of the difficulties in that specific suggestion.
However that may be, there is this to be said about his specific suggestion. It really would be very much of a triviality as it is. He mentioned the 1949 Act.


It is perfectly true that that standard was provided there, but it is interesting to reflect that that Act merely repeated the relevant provision from a much earlier Act passed in 1906. That is nothing necessarily against it, but it possibly indicates that the yardstick is a little out of proportion in 1959.

Mr. D. Johnston: Does the noble Lord mean that, in his view at any rate, the yardstick of 1949 and the earlier yardstick of 1906 is too small, that the figure should be increased to 5s., 10s. or £1? Is that what he means?

Lord John Hope: That is just the difficulty. I feel that the figure suggested is of a trivial nature in terms of modern money values. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman comes back and asks, quite reasonably, what I think would be reasonable. That is precisely where I feel that it would be unwise to be tied down.

Mr. T. Fraser: So the noble Lord intends to leave it to the Commission and the courts?

Lord John Hope: Leave it to the Commission as much as possible.

Mr. Fraser: And the courts in the end.

Lord John Hope: If necessary, at the end of the day, but at least, when one decides to leave it to the Commission, one is leaving it to people who will be on the spot and who will know or should know far better than Parliament what, in a given case, is a reasonable yardstick for substantial damage done.

Mr. Woodburn: As far as I can understand him, the noble Lord has been saying that what he does not want to do is to have the Commission troubled with trivial damage. Is that right?

Lord John Hope: Yes.

Mr. Woodburn: Could he draw the distinction between "not trivial" and "substantial"? The word "substantial" gives me the impression of being something different from "not trivial".

Lord John Hope: I do not think that any body of men would be misled by the word "substantial" at all. They would realise that it meant not trivial.

Mr. Woodburn: What does it mean?

Lord John Hope: It means not trivial, and that is very important. It is most valuable for the Commission to know that Parliament does not intend it to deal with trivial damage.

Mr. Woodburn: I would say that "considerable" damage—something to be considered as damage—would be different from "substantial", which seems to suggest something very great, in which case many things less than substantial would suffer. What does the noble Lord think?

Lord John Hope: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley would probably torpedo any attempt to insert the word "considerable" just as effectively as he did the word "substantial" in terms of dictionary definition. I recognise perfectly well that this is not easy. I did not in Committee, and I do not now, criticise the Opposition for raising the point about the word "substantial". It is not wholly satisfactory but, in the words of the old saying if they know of a better 'ole they should go to it. They have not found one vet. This is a worse hole.

Mr. Willis: Will the noble Lord read the subsection without the word "substantial" and see where we really are? It begins by saying that
Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer are coming on to any agricultural land…
In other words, the deer have not been once but they are coming on to it, which, I assume, means regularly coming on to the agricultural land
or woodland or garden ground and are causing… damage
If deer are wandering over agricultural land, garden ground or forestry land, they are doing damage if they wander there more than once.
What does the subsection say if we leave out the word "substantial"? It then reads:
… are causing… damage to crops, pasture or animal or human foodstuffs, or trees on that land and that the killing of the deer is necessary for the prevention of further damage".
Thus, in addition to the damage which is already done, the Commission is to be satisfied also that further damage is likely to be done.

Mr. William Ross: And not substantial damage.

Mr. Willis: It is not "substantial" damage here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) points out. The reference is to further damage being done there. Therefore, in toto, there will be a fair amount of damage done before the Commission will act, even if the word "substantial" is left out.

Lord John Hope: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that is so. If we did as he suggests and left out the word "substantial"—that was the substance of his suggestion, was it not?—

Mr. Willis: Yes.

Lord John Hope: — then any damage caused to crops with a risk of it being continued would fall to be dealt with under Statute. Then footmarks of deer across a corner of a little field would be regarded, strictly speaking, as damage. But that would not be the sort of damage which should be dealt with by the Commission.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The noble Lord is talking nonsense. The Clause speaks of
…red deer… coming on to any agricultural land or woodland or garden ground and… causing"—
omitting the word "substantial"—
damage…
I suggest to the noble Lord that if the deer are coming night after night they are not causing negligible damage. They are not just strolling that way because it happens to be a pleasant piece of land to stroll over. They are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to obtain something to eat.

Lord John Hope: Then they are causing substantial damage.

Mr. Willis: The noble Lord now accepts my point and admits that they will be causing damage of a substantial character. The Clause goes on to say — not only if the deer are coming down maybe every night for a week or a fortnight—that the Commission has to satisfy itself that to prevent further damage it is necessary to kill deer.
I suggest to the noble lord that, before we should think of killing deer to prevent further damage, the further damage will be substantial as, otherwise, we should be thinking of killing off deer because they happen to have trodden down three blades of grass in the northern corner of someone's field and not only if they were doing substantial damage. All these considerations would automatically be part of the Commission's duty without the word "substantial" I suggest to the noble Lord that he reads the Clause—I do not think that he has read it—to see what it really says.
The second point I want to make is that there is something of very great delay in the argument that we have to wait for substantial damage before we start to kill marauding deer or make a scheme under the provisions of Clause 6. Surely we have not to wait until someone has had £50. £60 or £100 worth of damage done before we take steps about it. We do not even know whether it is substantial. In the context of a very large farm, well insured, it might not be very substantial, but £5 worth of damage in the context of a five or six acre crop might be very substantial. The whole of someone's winter pea crop might go in the night.
If the noble Lord took out the word the Clause would ensure precisely what he wants it to ensure and would tend to prevent damage being done which might otherwise be done if we have to wait for a substantial amount of damage to occur before steps can be taken to deal with the deer. Both these considerations seem to me to be very important, quite apart from the rather useless argument of trying to determine what exactly "substantial" means. I do not think that we get very far like that.
Let us read the Clause without the word "substantial" and see whether we do not achieve the same goal that we set out to achieve. I think that we do. I also think that by omitting the word it makes it possible to prevent a certain amount of damage being done prior to substantial damage, which might be very great indeed. I think that these are important considerations and that the noble Lord ought to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will change his mind. I believe


that the debate has proved that the Government would be very wise to take out the word "substantial", which will cause all the trouble. If it is so important to have it in Clause 6 then the immediate question which arises is why we have not got the word in Clause 7. Of course, Clause 7 is to be amended by the Government. In their Amendment they say that
Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry…
it has to set in motion an elaborate control scheme. All the arguments of the Joint Under-Secretary mean that if the word is not in this Clause there is something wrong with the other Clause.
I suggest to the noble Lord that he should trust the Commission. It will have to be satisfied in relation to the damage. Do not let us throw in this extra word to delay any action being taken. If under Clause 7 we can activate a control scheme on the basis of just "damage" to agriculture surely the Commission does not need the phrase "substantial damage" in the context of this Clause.

Mr. D. Johnston: I am sorry about the reply which the noble Lord has given because it means that Parliament is abrogating its duty. The primary duty of Parliament when passing legislation is to pass clear legislation which is not certain to give rise to controversy and difficult points of law. This word will certainly give rise to controversy and difficult points of law, and for this reason.
The Commission, or, rather, the panel as I think it must be, will adopt standards of the word "substantial" which may vary as between one panel and another. A panel will decide that substantial damage has been done by marauding deer and will take the steps necessary under the Clause. What will happen? On some occasion or other it will meet a recalcitrant highland laird who, with the habitual propensity of his kind, will litigate. We shall then have an action in the court of assize to interdict the panel and the Commission from proceeding to take the steps proposed under the Clause.
I am sure that the noble Lord has met such Highland lairds. We shall have a magnificent debate which will be highly remunerative to members of the Scottish

Bar and the court will be entertained for some hours with excerpts from various judgments in which the word "substantial" has been determined. I can imagine that it would be a great entertainment and if the Lord Advocate were still in office at the time he would probably appear for the Commission, as it is, in effect, a Government Department.
I can well imagine the embarrassments to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be put when asked what Parliament meant when it wrote the word "substantial" into the Bill. I wonder what his reply would be to the court and to the House? Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to agree with me from his experience that in litigation this is the most fatal type of word ever to put into a Clause, particularly into a Clause which affects landlords, especially landlords in the Highlands.
I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) is present. He has great experience both at the Bar and on the judicial bench. He knows as well as I do that this is the sort of word that gives rise to difficulty. It is said that the word is necessary. If it is necessary in this Clause, why is it not necessary in the succeeding Clause? The real reason is, of course, that the Government have not the courage of their convictions, if they have any convictions.
They know quite well that the Clause will never work. They know quite well that it is much better to cast the odium of working this Clause upon panels and say, "The panel should decide it, not us." They dare not put in the words of the 1949 Act, because that would offend the owners of deer forests. On the other hand, they dare not specify what damage must be caused per acre, because that would offend the crofters. They would rather that the matter were determined by the panels or the Commission to the great expense of the Commission and of the other litigant.
I look forward to the Lord Advocate trying to defend the presence of this word in the Clause. It will be fascinating.

Sir Patrick Spens: I have listened with great interest to the debate. I share the dislike of every lawyer of the adjective "substantial", but I do not believe that it matters


whether the word remains in the Clause or not. The main decision which has to be taken is not as to the quantum of damage, but as to whether there is a prospect of further damage which can be prevented only by making an order to kill the deer. The Commission will not concern itself with whether it is a matter of a few footprints of deer or whether it is the removal of a crop.
The question which the Commission will deal with is: is there a prospect of this being repeated. and is the only way to prevent it being repeated to kill the deer? I do not mind whether the word remains in or not, but I dislike the word intensely.

Mr. Maclay: I have listened with great care to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington. South (Sir P. Spens), and I respect the willingness of hon. and learned Members to deprive themselves of future sources of revenue, according to the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), by aiming at absolute purity in an Act of Parliament. If only there were an Act of Parliament which was clear, precise and capable of a definite interpretation, I should be extraordinarily happy.
There is, of course, a difference between Clauses 6 and 7. Clause 7 is concerned with the question of schemes dealing with colonised deer. A quite different set of circumstances exists in coming to a decision whether this is necessary under Clause 7 than in the rather doubtful question which arises under Clause 6, of whether deer are marauding and are likely to come back and maraud again. The word "substantial" is a useful guide. It would be a great mistake to insert a precise figure for the very reason that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave, namely, that what may be substantial to one crofter is negligible to a very big farmer. I should have thought that some flexibility was essential in the administration of the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the Secretary of Slate appreciate that it is not what the crofter, the Commission or the panels think at the end of the day, but if a landowner takes the view that the Commission should not have acted in respect to marauding deer, it is he who will go to the court to say that the damage was not substantial.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The original decision must rest with the Commission. The hon. Member is looking for a difficulty which I do not think will arise, particularly in dealing with marauding deer. Difficulty will be caused by the landlord who makes a fuss about marauding deer being dealt with. I recognise that an argument may arise about a big scheme under Clause 7, but it is generally known when deer are marauding. It is like a sick fox which does certain things. A marauding deer is apt to act in the same way. Nobody wants it and everybody wants to get rid of it.
However much we may argue whether this word is better than another, if one examines it carefully there is still reasonable room for doubt as to what should happen. I think that we must reject the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: I am disappointed with the answer of the Secretary of State. He has had guidance, almost silent guidance. from the Lord Advocate and from two other eminent legal luminaries. I should like to call his attention to a very important point. If deer come regularly on to certain ground and are an infernal nuisance, they may not cause what anyone would call substantial damage, but the cumulative effect may be that they are absolutely ruining the croft or farm. It may be that on no occasion could they be said to be causing substantial damage.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said, that the two conditions have to be satisfied. The second condition is obviously complete protection to any frivolous interpretation of the word "damage" because if deer are causing damage the Commission must be satisfied that to prevent further damage it is necessary to kill the deer.
It is clear that a nuisance can be caused which could not justified in the courts as being substantial and a deer forest owner could have his deer flitting about on other people's land without the damage caused being defined as substantial. My feeling about the word "substantial" is that it means big or great. Some of the clansmen of the right hon. Gentleman have been involved in legal processes over the word "substantial", and I should have thought that he would


have learned from the experiences of his fellow clansmen.
Obviously, the Government and the House want perpetual or continuing damage to a farm to be stopped. Why should that continuing damage be restricted by the presence of the word "substantial" and why should we tie the Commission's hands so that it cannot act, even if the damage constitutes a continual interference, until substantial damage is caused? The words "big" and "small" are relative. It may be that the Secretary of State does not want to accept the specific definition of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) and wants to

leave the matter to the Commission. If the word "substantial" is deleted the Commission will have the right to stop an infernal nuisance and continual destruction being caused to a farm which may not be capable of being described as substantial.

I hope that the Secretary of State will take advantage of the permission of the House to speak again, and say that he will leave out the word "substantial", even if he cannot accept the specific definition of my hon. and learned Friend.

Question put, That "substantial" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 171.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[5.50 p.m.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Glover, D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Glyn, Col. Richard H,
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Cough, C. F. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Atkins, H. E.
Gower, H. R.
McMaster, S. R.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Barber, Anthony
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maddan, Martin


Barter, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Batsford, Brian
Green, A.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marshall, Douglas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, R. L.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Biggs-Davison, J, A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bishop, F. P.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Body, R. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braine, B. R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Brewis, John
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, John (Test)
Peel, W. J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cole, Norman
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Corfield, F. V.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.
Profumo, J. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Redmayne, M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robertson, Sir David


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leavey, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


du Cann, E. D. L.
Leburn, W. G.
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Duthle, W. S.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sharpies, R. C.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.
Speir, R. M.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Gammans, Lady
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Storey, S.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maclay. Rt. Hon. John
Studholme, Sir Henry




Summers, Sir Spencer
Turner, H. F. L.
Webster, David


Teeling, W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Temple, John M.
Vane, W. H. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, s.)


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Woollam, John Victor


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Wall, Patrick



Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R, (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, A. (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hilton, A. V.
Peart, T. F.


Albu, A. H.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pentland, N.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Holt, A. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reeves, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, B.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Royle, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Carmichael, J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Logan, D. C.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McCann, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McInnes, J
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thornton, E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mahon, Simon
Tomney, F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)
Viant, S. P.


Finch. H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wade, D. w.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mayhew, C. P.
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Messer, Sir F.
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. s.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Grey, C. F.
Moss, R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
William, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.



Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 34 leave out from "authorization" to "any" in line 35.—[Lord John Hope.]

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 3 and to insert:
make a request to that effect in writing to that person.

(3) Where any such request as aforesaid has been made to a person, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation under this section unless it appears to them that he has become unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the request".
Subsection (1) of the Clause provides that where the Commission is satisfied that marauding deer are causing damage


that is likely to be continued, it shall authorise somebody to kill the deer. Subsection (2), however, provides that where the Commission is also satisfied that it knows where the deer are coming from and that the owner or shooting tenant of the land will forthwith undertake the killing of the deer, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation but shall instead give him an opportunity of doing so at the Commission's request. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that if it becomes apparent that he cannot or will not comply with the request the Commission may then authorise someone else—for instance, one of its own stalkers—to undertake the killing without further delay.
This Amendment is the result of another of the undertakings I gave in Committee to try to meet what I thought was the Committee's wish, and I hope that it does so.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in commending the Amendment to the House, went a little further than the Amendment itself goes. I may be wrong about that, but he called our attention to the fact that the Commission was obliged not to make an authorisation for the killing of the marauding deer where the person with the right to kill deer on that land had undertaken to kill the deer forthwith. The words in subsection (2) of this Clause are
any person having the right to kill deer thereon will forthwith undertake the killing of the deer first-mentioned".
Then he said that when any request is not being complied with the Commission will authorise one of its own staff forthwith to deal with the marauding deer.
I am wondering whether that is the effect of the Amendment. The new subsection (3) which it proposes says:
Where any such request as aforesaid has been made to a person, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation under this section unless it appears to them that he has become unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the request".
Surely those words envisage a delay in dealing with the matter, a delay quite unjustified when one is dealing with marauding deer.
Marauding deer, it has been discovered, have on the last two nights trampled on

the crofter's turnip patch, and there is reason to believe that they will come again on the next two nights. The person who has the right to take the deer has given an undertaking to the Commission that he will deal with the marauding deer. That is what it says in subsection (2) of the Clause as it stands. The Amendment says that the Commission will not issue an authorisation for the killing of the deer unless it appears to the Commission that the person having the right to take the deer has become unable or unwilling to do it.
Presumably, the Commission is in Inverness, but the marauding may occur in Argyllshire or Sutherland. The panel may be in Inverness. At any rate, neither is on the spot and seeing whether or not damage is being done. It sends someone to inform it, and he says that the person with the right to take the deer has become unable or unwilling to comply with the Commission's request to kill the deer, and then the Commission or panel may authorise one of its own stalkers to kill the deer.
What period of time is to elapse after the making of the request, which has to be done in writing, to the person who has the right to take the deer to kill the deer which have been on the turnip patch? It may be that the deer have been on the turnip patch for the last two nights and eaten one-third of the turnips already, and that they will come back another night. By the time the letter is delivered, precious few of the turnips will be left. Then, presumably, the panel, or the Commission, as the case may be, will have to allow a reasonable time for the person to comply with the request made in writing. What sort of period of time is to elapse before the Commission's stalkers are sent in?
I rather think that this proposal is just tinkering with the problem of marauding deer. This is not the way to authorise the Commission to deal with marauding deer.

Lord John Hope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that in debate in Committee it was suggested that 48 hours would be a reasonable limit to give. I remember pointing out that whereas, in many cases, that might be reasonable, and that the Commission would certainly enjoin speed, there


would be occasions, in bad weather, for instance, when it would not be reasonable, and that, therefore, it would be better to leave it to the Commission. That was the consideration which was the basis of this Amendment. The Commission will not delay, but have the job done as soon as it possibly can.

Mr. Fraser: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary is wrong in thinking that in Committee the Opposition thought that the period of 48 hours or any such period of time would be a proper time to allow an owner to deal with marauding deer, if the turnips have been eaten and the turnip patch trampled and destroyed.
I am reliably informed by those who suffer this damage that deer do not pick Out one turnip at a time and eat it cleanly before they start on another. I understand that that is not the way deer behave when they get into a turnip patch. It is my view, and I should have thought it would have been the view of the House, that when deer are marauding and doing this kind of damage, action should be taken quickly. The Joint Under-Secretary will recall how he described the habits of marauding deer, whom everybody wanted to get rid of, he said.
Why should we say to the Commission that if the person who has the right to take the deer is willing to handle them himself but then fails, it has got to make a request in writing, taking 36 or 48 hours, and why should we then say in the Bill that the Commission may not, after that, authorise one of its own servants to take the deer until it appears to the Commission that the person with the right to take the deer has been unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the Commission's request? Should we not rather say that if he does not deal with the deer forthwith, the Commission's servants will do so? It seems to me that the Commission's servants should forthwith deal with the marauding deer.
The Commission will spend a good deal of the taxpayers' money, and we do not want it to be wholly for the benefit of the sporting tenants of deer forests. We hope that some of the public money which the Commission is to spend will be for the crofters and farmers who have suffered damage over the years. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the

words of the Amendment are hopelessly inadequate for the purpose.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I should like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, West (Mr. T. Fraser) has said. The Joint Under-Secretary said that he had accepted the Opposition's view—he said it was the Opposition's view—that 48 hours was about the amount of time one had in mind in meaning urgency, but that the Commission must be allowed to have discretion in this matter to deal with various circumstances, such as bad weather.

Lord John Hope: Perhaps I have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that that is what I said. I was referring to what I thought was a request by the Opposition, that the period of 48 hours should be stipulated. In Committee, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), as follows:
In the event of that person not complying with the request within forty-eight hours, the Commission shall authorise the killing of the deer".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, Tuesday, 10th March. 1959; c. 315.]
I think that I am on the right point.

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but it leaves the matter as unsatisfactory as it was before. I did not understand the explanation that the Minister gave of the Amendment that he himself was moving. It seemed to me that the terms in which he moved the Amendment were quite inconsistent and to some extent contradictory to the Amendment. All that the Amendment on the Notice Paper does is to provide that
Where any such request as aforesaid has been made to a person, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation under this section unless it appears to them that he has become unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the request.
A more negative form of words to achieve 'what the Minister implied was a positive purpose, I find it hard to imagine.
I understood that the purpose of this Amendment was to meet a request made by the Opposition during the Committee stage of the Bill and was to make sure that where the request was made in writing to the owner of the land from


which the deer had come—a request which we were very doubtful about—and there was not an immediate reply, there would be power to act quickly. I cannot see how this Amendment gives the Minister the power to act with the speed which we demanded. I would have thought that there was an opportunity within the terms of the Amendment for very considerable delay indeed.
It is one thing to lay on the Commission that it shall not issue an authorisation unless certain things are done it is quite a different thing to compel the Commission to act speedily if it does not get consent from the owner of the land quickly. I do not know what can be done about it at this stage, but I think that this Amendment is a most unsatisfactory form of words for trying to achieve what the Minister himself said he was trying to achieve.

Sir James Duncan: I think the hon. Gentleman is a little ungracious to my noble Friend, because it was on the basis of an Amendment that he moved in Committee that my noble Friend gave an undertaking. He said:
I do not want to be unfair to anybody over this or any other matter, and 1 shall consider the question in the light of all the arguments that have been addressed to me.

Mr. T. Fraser: Read the previous sentence.

Sir J. Duncan: I will.
What I am anxious to do is to see that there is no unreasonable delay before the Commission goes in and does the job itself."— [0FFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th March, 1959; c. 318.]
I made a speech on that occasion, when I suggested that the words which the hon. Gentleman was suggesting then were unnecessary on the ground that the Commission in any case had a discretion to go in if the owner refused forthwith to obey the request. My noble Friend has attempted not to meet me but to meet the hon. Gentleman. I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little unreasonable in looking a gift horse in the mouth when the Government have actually made an attempt to meet the point of view of the Opposition. Whether it is a successful attempt or not, I do not know, but at any rate it was an attempt to meet the request of the Opposition and, having done so, I think that they ought to accept the spirit of the Amendment.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the hon. Member tell me where in the Bill as it stands there is a provision that the Commission can act forthwith if it does not receive a reply from the owner of the land?

Sir J. Duncan: In the original Bill there was nothing about it. I said that the Commission had discretion to act forthwith. I may have been wrong in saying that, but I said that it had discretion to act if the request to the owner of the land was not fulfilled. I said that it was a natural consequence that the Commission would enter if the request was not carried out. I still believe that the position is perfectly satisfactory without this Amendment or the Amendment proposed in Committee by the hon. Gentleman.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: This is the queerest form of English for getting anything done that I have ever seen. In other words, presumably the Bill wants the Commission to do something and, throughout the Bill, there is a continual deterrent against the Commission doing any of the jobs that it is supposed to carry out.
Why not say that if the owner or a person is unwilling to comply with the terms of the request the Commission shall then take action? That would seem a sensible way of putting it. The Government are so terrified that the Commission might do something that they put it this way—
Where any such request as aforesaid has been made to a person, the Commission shall not issue art authorisation under this Section unless it appears to them that he has become unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the request
The emphasis is that the Commission "shall not do anything".
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who moved an Amendment in Committee, was anxious that the provision should work immediately and then if a person who should kill the deer was not prepared to do so the Commission should have power almost immediately to enter into the matter. The Government are so careful that they provide that the Commission shall write a little letter to him.
There have been a number of occasions during consideration of this Bill when we have worked up great power to do nothing at all. We have used the steam


hammer to crack a peanut. It reminds me of the man who stokes up his engine to get a tremendous head of steam and then only blows the whistle. This is all on the same terms. We are working up tremendous power for the Commission and then it is supposed to write a little letter to the person concerned.

Lord John Hope: The difference between this and the right hon. Gentleman's story is that in this event the engine roars into action very quickly.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps we misunderstood that. So that we shall not waste any time, perhaps the noble Lord will show us where it is provided that immediate action takes place if the person does not get the job done.

Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman should read the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: It says that the Commission shall not issue an authorization—

Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman is really very naughty. He ought to know better. He knows quite well that "shall not unless" is exactly the same as "shall if".

Mr. Woodburn: We are quite prepared to accept the alternative wording that the Commission shall do something if the man does not do it, but according to the Amendment the Commission shall not issue an authorisation "unless it appears…" My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton used the words "tinkering with the problem." This is just pottering about, pretending to do something and taking the teeth out of the Commission. The noble Lord assured us that the Amendment provided the teeth, but no one has been able to discover where the teeth are. Teeth have been described as little white things in one's head that bite, but so far as I can gather the little white things here do not seem to bite at all.
I think that the noble Lord has made a bad job of this. I wish that he had Oven some bite to the Commission so that it could deal with these marauding deer. He expressed his concern about marauding deer and described how they came in and wandered about like rogue elephants and had to be destroyed immediately. We are concerned that the Commission does not seem to have any

power to get on with the job at all. It has to write letters and give 48 hours notice, and therefore the deer are given plenty of time to eat the rest of the turnips.

Mr. Ross: Can we interest the Lord Advocate in this? The Joint Under-Secretary has given us an interpretation. I did not go to Eton.

Mr. Rankin: What is my hon. Friend doing here then?

Mr. Ross: That question would be relevant if I were sitting on the other side of the House, because one in every three of Scottish Tory Members went to Eton. I am beginning to wonder what exactly is the value of that educational establishment. We are told by the noble Lord that this is a purely negative way of saying "shall if" and that "shall not" followed by "unless" means "shall" followed by "if". With all due respect, it means nothing of the kind. I am grateful for the suggestion made to me by an hon. Friend that if there were a notice board on the seashore at Ayr which said "You shall not bathe unless the tide is in" it would not mean, as the noble Lord would suggest, exactly the same as if it said, "You shall bathe if the tide is in." What nonsense it is to suggest that the two phrases mean the same thing.
Here, for some reason or other, it is thought that someone will meet a request and undertake forthwith to do something. After a lapse of time, it appears that that person has not carried out his undertaking. I do not know how the Commission finds this out. As far as I know, the Commission is not sitting twenty-four hours a day six days a week. Somehow or other, however, it discovers that the man is unwilling or unable to carry out the undertaking given, and then the provision is made that
… the Commission shall not issue an authorization… unless…
But that does not mean to say that the Commission will issue an authorisation. even in those circumstances.

Lord John Hope: The hon. Member must take the words from the previous subsection, which state that the Commission shall make a request in writing. This subsection provides that it shall not do that "unless".

Mr. Ross: With all due respect, and acknowledging my lack of Etonian knowledge, I would point out that the Amendment states that:
Where any such request as aforesaid has been made to a person, the Commission shall not issue an authorisation under this section unless it appears to them…
That does not mean that in certain circumstances the Commission must issue an authorisation. There is no obligation at all laid upon the Commission.
I think that thirteen old Etonians on the other side of the House had better get together with the old Etonian who represents the Liberal Party and think this out. I hope that the Minister will get some of his hon. Friends to talk on this subject while he prepares a manuscript Amendment to put the matter right. The sands of time are running out on this Bill, and a piece of nonsense is to be written into the Measure unless the noble Lord acts quickly, and certainly more quickly than the Commission will be able to act if it is saddled with the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: In order to give the noble Lord time to think this out and to rectify it as he promised in Committee, I should like to consider how this provision will work out in practice. What happens is that a smallholder or crofter who is having his crops damaged because the deer have been coming on to his land draws the attention of the panel in his area to that fact. One assumes that the panel will then meet. It will have to decide when it is possible to meet. It might be that night, but it might not be until the following night, and meanwhile more deer have come down to the crofter's land and done a little more damage.
The panel then decides that the person who is renting a neighbouring sporting estate from which the deer are marauding should do this job forthwith. The panel writes a letter to him and asks him to do it. There might have been a breakdown in the postal services that night. One knows that in the Highlands they are not always quite so efficient, for perfectly good reasons. And these things happen in the autumn or the winter. The neighbouring owner, therefore, perhaps does not receive the letter for two or three days. When he gets it he has run out of shot and he decides that he will have

to buy some. Meanwhile, the poor crofter has probably lost all his crops.
It may take two or three days to obtain the shot. It would certainly take a day. We assume that the neighbouring owner has obtained some shot and he decides to go out. How does this sporting tenant, the man who is occupying or renting the deer forest and is probably living there, destroy the deer? How long will it take him to destroy them? Will it be a day, two days, three days, a week? It must be two or three days. Then somebody says to the crofter whose crops have been completely destroyed, "Look, there are more deer. This business has not been stopped."
The crofter, in turn, informs the panel. The members of the panel ask, "What is happening? We told so and so to shoot the deer. Has he not done the job?" The crofter replies, "No. They are still coming down." The panel members then say, "We had better get in touch with him." They find that he has taken a trip to Inverness in the meantime. Finally, they get in touch with him the following morning or perhaps a day or two later. They say to him, "We thought that you were going to shoot the deer forthwith." He says, "I had no ammunition. In any case I had to go to Inverness yesterday because I had to sell some stock." He has not done the shooting forthwith for perfectly good reasons.

Mr. Ede: He might say "It was New Year's Day and I was unable."

Mr. Willis: He would be unable or incapable for two or three days if it were that time of the year.
The panel members then say to him, "When will you do it?" He says: "I will try to do it tomorrow or the next day." They reply, "All right, but for goodness sake get the job done." Days go by and the poor crofter is wringing his hands and almost shedding bitter tears because nothing is done. How long is this to go on? The panel has to see the man and satisfy itself that he is unable or unwilling to do the work. It then finds that, though he may have been unable to do it for two or three days, he is still quite willing to do it. How long is it before the deer are shot? That is what we want to know.
We were promised that something would be done about this point by this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary kindly said in Committee that he agreed that this was a problem and that the deer ought to be shot as quickly as possible, but the Amendment does not make it appear that that is the intention at all. Even the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in Committee was better than this. That at least fixed a limit of forty-eight hours after which the Commission would get on with the job and the panel would shoot the deer itself or employ people to shoot them. The Amendment is indefinite. Under its procedure it is quite possible for a week or two to elapse, for quite good reasons, before the job is done. Surely, the noble Lord could offer us something better than that.

Amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out from "give" to the end of line 10 and to insert:
as soon as practicable to any person, who in their opinion is likely to be on any land mentioned therein, such warning of their intention as they consider necessary to prevent danger to that person.
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we take with this Amendment the following ones to lines 11, 13 and 17?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that that would be convenient.

Lord John Hope: I am obliged, Sir. These Amendments arise from my undertaking to the Committee to reconsider the question of service of notices on owners and occupiers in connection with the issue of authorisations to kill marauding deer. At present Clause 6 (4) requires the Commission to give at least twenty-four hours' notice to the occupiers of land which an authorised person may cross in pursuit of marauding deer, and to give such notice as may be practicable to the owners of the land.
These provisions were criticised mainly on the ground that they would impose a heavy burden on the Commission, and, of course, on the panels to which Clause 6 functions may be delegated, and that they might result in serious delay in what is recognised to be an emergency operation. There might be more than one

occupier of the land. For instance, there might be not only an agricultural occupier but also a shooting tenant and a fishing tenant, and failure to recognise a particular occupier and to serve notice on him might, it was argued, lead to litigation.
The notice to occupiers was intended primarily as a measure to prevent public danger when an authorised person carrying a rifle, enters on land to follow and kill marauding deer. The first of these Amendments has the effect of substituting for notice to occupiers a warning to any person likely, in the opinion of the Commission, to be on the land. The advantage of the Amendment is that it relieves the Commission from the obligation to identify and notify every occupier of land, and allows it to make a common sense decision in every case.
The notice to owners was intended primarily as a matter of courtesy, and since identification of owners is seldom difficult, it is proposed to retain that provision. The subsequent Amendments are drafting, consequential upon this one.

Mr. D. Johnston: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the attention he has given to the suggestions which were put forward from this side of the Committee. This Amendment will greatly facilitate the work of the Commission. My only regret is that the hon. Gentleman has not taken somewhat similar steps in the following Clause.

Sir J. Duncan: May I thank my hon. Friend for looking at this point? I regret a little the omission of "twenty-four hours". I see that this is reasonable, but we lose a certain sense of urgency by omitting those words and substituting "as soon as practicable". I recognise, however, that there is danger to human life—and, maybe, animal life also, such as sheep and cattle on the hill—if warning is not given to the agricultural and grazing occupier as well as to the person who is the normal occupier, if that is the right description. I think it is reasonable that a little more time should be given to the Commission in order to make certain that everybody is covered, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: May I raise the question of the rambler, the walker, the mountaineer, in addition to the people


to whom the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) has referred? There might be a danger at times of people who are hill-walking coming on to areas where the Commission is acting against marauding deer. Therefore, might not this opportunity be taken to draw the attention of the future Commission to the possibility of giving a visible warning on the land on which they are operating? I have in mind the red flags put up by the Army on rifle ranges. Perhaps a notice could be put up stating, "Danger. Marauding deer being hunted". I merely draw the attention of the Minister to this point, and, through him, of the people who will be responsible for the Commission.

Lord John Hope: I am obliged for that suggestion and will see that it is forwarded in due course to the proper quarter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 11, leave out from beginning to "it" in line 12.

In line 13, leave out "that owner" and insert:
the owner of any land which is to be mentioned in an authorisation under this section".

In line 14, after "intention", insert "to issue that authorization".

In line 17, leave out "or occupier".— [Lord John Hope.]

Clause 7.—(CONTROL SCHEMES.)

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 37 and to insert:
7.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated, they shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken for that reduction or extermination as the case may be.
(2) Thereafter it shall be the duty of the Commission to consult with such owners or occupiers of land, being land where red deer are established, as the Commission consider to be substantially interested, to secure agreement on the carrying out of the measures which they have determined as aforesaid.
(3) Where after such consultations the Commission are satisfied that it is not possible to secure agreement as aforesaid or that the

measures agreed on are not being carried out, they shall make a scheme (hereinafter in this Act referred to as a ' control scheme ') for the carrying out of such measures.
This is the result of an undertaking given by myself to the Committee to redraft Clause 7. The defects in the Bill without this Amendment, as I saw them, are as follows. First, there is no qualification of damage and, on the face of it, the Commission is obliged to take action even in cases where the damage is slight. The Amendment cures this defect by making the question of whether or not to take action rest on the satisfaction of the Commission. Thus we have tried to deal with the first weakness.
Secondly, the phrase "having due regard to the nature and character of the land"—which will ring a bell in the memories of many hon. Members—is intended to indicate to the Commission the considerations it should bear in mind in determining the contents of a control scheme; that is, considerations such as the carrying capacity of different types of land, and so on. That is made clearer by changing the position of that phrase in the Amendment.
Subsection (2) as drafted obliges the Commission to wait until it is
… unable to secure the prevention of the damage"—
by voluntary action before it makes a control scheme. This is an unsatisfactory formula in that it might have to wait a very long time before it could prove that such voluntary measures as had been taken were not preventing damage and that no further voluntary measures were likely to be taken. The Amendment makes it clear that it shall make a control scheme if it cannot persuade owners and occupiers to adopt its plan of action voluntarily or if its plan is not being carried out to its satisfaction.
The final defect was that the original draft seemed to cause some confusion as to the sequence of procedure. We have tried to put that right and make the sequence plain in the redraft. It is a considerable piece of redrafting, but there is no change in the Government's intentions.

Mr. D. Johnston: The Joint Under-Secretary said that the redrafting embodied in the Amendment was made as a result of a request. So far as I can recollect and so far as I have been able


to check since he rose, I have been unable to find any request from the Opposition that this part of the Clause should be redrafted.

Lord John Hope: I said "an under-taking", "not a request". I gave an undertaking in the debate on Clause 7 that it would need a certain amount of redrafting.

Mr. Johnston: When the hon. Gentleman said "undertaking" I understood him to mean a promise in response to a request. If he means something else by "undertaking", then I am not sure what it means, but there was certainly no request from the Opposition that there should be any undertaking to redraft this part of the Clause.

Lord John Hope: My undertaking sprang from my agreeing to substitute "shall" for "may" in Clause 7 (2), and it was in those terms that I said that I thought I should be able to do that but a certain amount of redrafting of the Clause would be necessary.

Mr. Johnston: I accept that. I recollect that when "may" was deleted and "shall" was substituted, the hon. Gentleman said that he would undertake to redraft the Clause. What I am pointing out is that he must not attribute to the Opposition any request that this part of the Clause should be redrafted. Indeed, I am very well satisfied with the Clause as it stands, for reasons which I shall give in a moment.
The second thing the hon. Gentleman said was that the effect of the Amendment was not to change the Clause.

Lord John Hope: I said that the effect was not to change the procedure.

Mr. Johnston: The effect may well be not to change the procedure, but the Amendment makes a very substantial difference to what the Commission may do and may not do. I hope the House will understand that the Amendment makes a fundamental difference to the Bill. I will show that by examining, first, what the Bill does at the moment and, secondly, what the Amendment does.
As the Bill stands, the Commission is enjoined by Parliament to look at the evidence and ask itself two questions. The first is, "Has damage been caused by red deer in the past?" The second is,

"Is that damage likely to be continued in the future?". Does the Joint Under-Secretary agree with me so far?

Lord John Hope: indicated assent.

Mr. Johnston: If the answer to both those questions—they are both questions of fact—is in the affirmative, the Commission must then go to the owner of the forest from which the deer are reported to be coming and try to make arrangements with him for a mitigation or stopping of the damage. If the owner is unco-operative, the Commission is then empowered to make a scheme. I think the Lord Advocate will agree with me that those are the steps.
6.45 p.m.
Let us look at what happens under the Amendment. The first question is the same and the first step is the same. The Commission must look at the evidence and ask itself, "Has damage been caused in the past?" But the second question which it must ask itself under the Amendment is fundamentally different from the second question under the Bill as it stands at the moment. It is, "Should we take steps to exterminate the deer or to reduce the stock of deer for the purpose of stopping the damage?" Unlike the second question under the Bill as it stands, that is not a question of fact but a question of policy. I am sure that the Lord Advocate would agree with me there.
Following that, and if it decides that the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, only then is the Commission empowered to go to the owner of the deer forest and say, "What steps are you going to take to mitigate the damage?" If it receives no satisfactory reply, it is then, and only then, that it can make a control scheme.
What the Government propose to do by this Amendment is not to change the procedure but to change the questions which the Commission must ask itself. Instead of asking the Commission to answer two questions of fact upon which it would have evidence, the Government are asking the Commission to formulate policy by answering the second question. I feel sure the Lord Advocate would agree with that.
There is no guidance whatever as to how the Commission is to answer the


policy question embodied in the Amendment. We do not know what factors would weigh with the Commission. It is not sufficient under the Amendment to show that damage has been caused and is likely to continue. The Commission cannot act on that alone. There must be some other operative factor, because the Commission has to ask itself, "Should we take steps to destroy the deer or reduce the herd in order to prevent further damage?" There may be many factors, but none is indicated.
Under the Amendment, the Commission might well take into account that X, the owner of the deer forest, is a decent fellow, that the rental of the deer forest provides a substantial part of his income and that the deer form a substantially greater part of the revenue of the area than farming does. It might say that he is a member of the Conservative Party while the farmer whose land is being damaged is not, though that is perhaps rather an absurd example. However, there is absolutely no limit whatever to the factors which may be considered by the Commission in determining the answer to the question, "Should we order the destruction of the deer or the reduction of the herd?"
What the Government propose to do is to abrogate policy-making. Under the Clause as it stands, policy is being laid down by Parliament. Parliament says to the Commission, "You shall act if you are satisfied that damage has been done in the past and that damage is likely to be done in the future." Under the Amendment that is not so. Parliament says, "You must satisfy yourself that damage has been done in the past, and you must then decide a question of policy", because a question of policy is embodied in the word "should". Is that the intention of the Government? If it is the intention of the Government, it is a complete departure from the Bill as it now stands and places in the hands of the Commission a power very different from the one it has under the Bill as it now stands. If it is not the intention of the Government to do that, then I feel sure that the Lord Advocate will advise his hon. Friends that the effect of the Amendment is as I have said.
I conclude from the words of the Joint Under-Secretary that the Amendment is

designed merely to affect the sequence of events. If the hon. Gentleman means that, then I am sure that the Amendment does not embody the Government's intention and that the Government had better drop the Amendment and think again.

Lord John Hope: I did my best to follow the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), but I could not see that he established that there was a great departure in terms of policy. We have now suggested:
Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated, they shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken for that reduction or extermination as the case may be.

Mr. Johnston: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the words "they shall determine" do not come into operation until the Commission has answered the question whether the red deer should be reduced in number or exterminated and that is a policy question.

Lord John Hope: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what we are saying is, "Here is your yardstick for determining whether to put into operation the policy in the Bill"? Surely that is what we are doing.

Mr. Johnston: No, I do not think it is so. I think the Lord Advocate would advise the House that it is not so.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope that the Lord Advocate will advise the House in this matter. It seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend was quite right to call attention to the difference between the policy of the Amendment and the policy of the first two subsections which the Government now propose to delete. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the Amendment would give effect to an undertaking given in Committee. I am normally served fairly well by my memory in these matters, but I could not remember the undertaking.
I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings and I find the undertaking contained in columns 421 and 422 of the Report of 19th March. I had moved an Amendment to subsection (2),


to delete the word "may" and to insert the word "`shall". I spoke very briefly, because I had an intimation that the Joint Under-Secretary would accept the Amendment. In reply the hon. Gentleman said:
If the Commission is satisfied that a control scheme must be put into operation, it is clearly right that it should have no alternative but to put the scheme into operation. For that reason, I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I add that the Clause will have to be slightly redrafted, for we ought to give guidance to the Commission, as we did in Clause 6, on the way it should exercise its discretion…I hope that hon. Members opposite will be satisfied that it will not be difficult to make the provision obligatory instead of permissive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 19th March, 1959; c. 421–22.]
I hope that the Lord Advocate will advise the House in this matter, because it seems to me, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, that as the Clause stands at present the Commission must ask itself whether damage is being caused to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and then whether the damage is likely to be continued. If the answer to those two questions is in the affirmative, certain action must be taken by the Commission. No discretion is allowed; it must take certain action. It must consult certain persons, whom I need not enumerate. After those consultations it "shall" make a scheme. That is mandatory.
Under the Amendment, however, all this is to be taken out, and new words are to be put in—new words which the Joint Under-Secretary intimated, in Committee, would amount to a slight redrafting in order to make it clear that the provision would be mandatory instead of permissive. As amended, subsection (1) will read:
Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality "—
the Commission has to satisfy itself that the deer have caused damage—
and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number…
That is a matter of fact. The Commission has to be satisfied that red deer should be reduced in number—but it may not be so satisfied.
The Commission is an evenly balanced one, composed equally of persons interested in the preservation of deer and in controlling deer in the interests of

agriculture and forestry. One of the people interested in the better use of our land for forestry and agriculture may fail to turn up at a meeting. He may have missed his train, or his car may have broken down. In such a case the landlord and sporting interests may be in a majority of one. Then, no matter how much damage has been done, the Commission can decide that it should not make a scheme, and that the red deer should not be reduced in number or exterminated. It is allowed this discretion.
The Lord Advocate owes it to the House to advise hon. Members in this matter. Will he say that I am right or that I am wrong? Will he confirm what I have just said, namely, that under the Clause as it is to be amended it is for the Commission, having ascertained that damage has been done, to determine whether red deer should be reduced in number or exterminated? This is not picking up something in the original Clause; this is a weakening of the Clause.

Lord John Hope: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: The noble Lord shakes his head and says that he does not believe me. I do not want to weary the House, but if the Joint Under-Secretary does not believe me, I hope that the learned Lord Advocate will show me in what way the Amendment places an obligation upon the Commission to make a scheme. I can show the House the obligation under subsections (1) and (2) as they stand at present. By accepting the Amendment to delete "may" and insert "shall" the Joint Under-Secretary made the provision mandatory instead of leaving it permissive, as it was originally.

Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the words I used in Committee, but I want to emphasise the operative words. Immediately after saying
for that reason, I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
I said:
I add that the Clause will have to be slightly redrafted…
Never mind about "slightly"; that may be an under-estimate. I went on:
for we ought to give guidance to the Commission, as we did in Clause 6, on the way it should exercise its discretion.
That is exactly what we have done.

Mr. Fraser: The noble Lord may think that this is what he has done, but it is clear that this is no mere redrafting; this is a policy change. Under the Clause as amended by the substitution of "shall" for "may", any discretion which had previously been at the disposal of the Commission, to decide whether or not to take action, was removed.

Lord John Hope: Surely that is not weakening the provision; it is strengthening it. Instead of leaving it to the Commission either to make a scheme or not to make a scheme—which could have been the strict interpretation of the original words—we now tell the Commission that where damage has been done, and where deer must be destroyed in order to prevent further damage being done, a scheme shall be made.

Mr. Fraser: I shall have to speak more slowly, because the Joint Under-Secretary has not followed me.

Lord John Hope: I have followed the hon. Member very clearly.

Mr. Fraser: The noble Lord has not followed me, because under the Clause as drafted the Commission must be satisfied that damage is being caused to agriculture or forestry by red deer. It has also to be satisfied that damage is likely to be continued. If it is satisfied on both matters it must then take certain action, and no discretion is allowed. It must then
consult with such owners or occupiers of land…as the Commission consider to be substantially interested, with a view to securing the prevention of the damage.
That is what Parliament was saying in the Clause as originally drafted.

The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman will give way—I must join this happy party at this stage—

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry—but I must bring my remarks to a close. I thought that the Lord Advocate wanted to interrupt and to tell me whether he agreed or disagreed with me.
This is a tremendous departure from what we decided in Committee, and the difficulty is that whenever I sit down I shall have exhausted my right to speak. That is why I wanted to take hon. Members with me while I was on my feet. In Committee I can rise to speak more than once, but here I exhaust my right the moment I sit down.
Although the Joint Under-Secretary has been twice on his feet it is clear that he has not understood the difference between the Clause as amended in Committee and the Clause as the Government now propose to amend it. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter to realise that by the Amendment the Government are leaving the Commission quite free to exercise its discretion and to decide whether or not it will take any action to prevent the continuation of the damage that is being done to agriculture or forestry. If that is their intention it is a great pity that they have expressed it in giving effect to an undertaking made by the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee that he would strengthen the Clause and make the provision obligatory.
Now he seeks to remove the mandatory provisions and replace them by permissive provisions. I hope that on further consideration, and after listening to the Lord Advocate, the Government will agree to withdraw the Amendment

The Lord Advocate: The phraseology in the Amendment is different from that in the original Clause. But at the end of the day the difference amounts merely to a clearer setting out of the procedure—at any rate, that is my advice. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) made much play about the difference between fact and policy. I cannot see where policy comes into the question. Policy is something broad, but what the hon. and learned Member indicated as policy was the phrase in the Amendment referring to the question whether
the red deer in the area in which the locality is situated should be reduced in number or exterminated.
In a way, I suppose that could be called policy, but it is surely no more than a question of fact. It is a question whether the facts are such, in that particular area, that there should be a reduction in numbers or extermination.
Under the terms of the original subsection (1) there is the additional condition precedent that the Commission shall consult the owners, and I appreciate, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said, that we have advanced the question of
having due regard to the nature and character of the land


to an earlier stage in the procedure. That is true. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley pointed out that at the moment the Commission starts with two findings in fact; that there is damage to agriculture on forestry land, and that the damage is likely to be continued. Then there is a peremptory order to consult with the owners. At a later stage, at the beginning of subsection (2) having consulted with the owners, there is another peremptory order upon the Commission.
In the Amendment now before us there is an additional condition precedent to causing damage and to seeing whether it is to be continued. We find that the Commission must be satisfied that red deer have caused damage and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area in which the land is situated should be reduced. Then the Commission
…shall determine, having due regard to the nature and character of the land in that area, what measures shall be taken…
That is how it appears and it is rather a sensible procedure.
The Commission has to do that. Should it find that there is damage to agriculture, and if it thinks there should be a reduction, having regard to the nature and character of the land, the Commission must make up its mind about what measures shall be taken.

Mr. D. Johnston: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is a sensible procedure, and that may be true. But that is not the question about which we wish to be advised. We wish to know: is the Amendment the same? Does the Amendment embody the same ideas as the Clause in its present form?

The Lord Advocate: It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any new conception of the situation. There is nothing ulterior in this Amendment. It may be that hon. Members opposite think that the Clause was clearer in its original form, but there is nothing sinister in introducing a Clause in a slightly different form. I can assure the House that there is no suggestion here of any basic alteration in the position of the Commission or in its essential duties.
I agree with hon. Members opposite that the phraseology is different, that the order of procedure is slightly different.

But, fundamentally, I cannot see any difference in the Clause as it originally stood and as it will be if this Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the words, "as it originally stood". Does he mean as the Clause came from the Committee and is now before the House, or is he referring to some other stage? That is a matter of some importance.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is probably referring to the fact that at one time the word "may" appeared in the Clause and during the Committee stage discussions we put in the word "shall." I was referring to the Clause in the form in which it is before the House after the Committee stage discussions, and after it had been amended in Committee.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Lord Advocate over this matter. I have a clear recollection of what happened in the Committee. All hon. Members who served on the Committee, particularly those who represent areas in which deer have been causing trouble, were concerned about the damage which was being done and the need for action to prevent that damage.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State will recollect it was because of that and because we felt that Clause 7 was not strong enough, leaving far too much room for the Commission to exercise its discretion, that it was decided to insert the word "shall" and ensure that action would be taken to prevent damage. This is the whole difference between the Clause as it is before us now and as the Government seek to amend it. In its present form, the Clause states that where the Commission is satisfied that damage has been caused, and that the damage is likely to continue, it will take action to prevent further damage. That is the whole emphasis, and it is absolutely mandatory.
We had a long discussion about whether we should leave the word "damage" alone or qualify it, and we decided that the word "substantial" was absolutely essential. In accepting the word "shall" during the Committee stage discussions, the Joint Under-Secretary told us that, of course, he would have to


make some slight alteration to give guidance to the Commission. I am sure that every hon. Member thought that the Joint Under-Secretary would put the word "substantial" in front of "damage". But he decided not to do that.
It may be clear to everyone today that when we were discussing "substantial" and why it was essential in Clause 6 but we could do without it in Clause 7, that there was a good reason why. The good reason is that the Government have not slightly altered Clause 7, but have completely recast it. They have changed the emphasis from the prevention of damage following its proof, on which the Commission had to take action, and have put the Commission in the first instance into the position of taking a decision about whether or not it should reduce or exterminate the deer. That had already been decided by Parliament, as Clause 7 stands at present. I wish the Lord Advocate to apply his mind to the meaning of the new and amended Clause:
Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused damage…and that for the prevention of further damage the red deer in the area…should be reduced in number or exterminated…
Surely it is right to assume that there are three courses open to the Commission. That is the amount of policy manoeuvring which we are now giving to the Commission. It can decide that it is satisfied about these things and that the red deer should be reduced in number. Or it can decide that it is not necessary to kill any deer at all in order to prevent damage. In other words, that the damage can be prevented in some other way. Thirdly. the Commission can decide to ignore the damage which is being done and let it continue. That is the amount of policy discretion we give to the Commission if we admit this change. I should like to know from the Lord Advocate whether I am right or wrong, but so far as I can see there is no argument about it.
There was originally a mandatory obligation on the Commission that if damage was proved and was likely to continue it should immediately consult the owners. Nothing was said about killing or exterminating the deer. In fact, the Commission could leave that to the owners and nothing else was required of the Commission. In the new version of Clause 7, if the Commission decides it is not satisfied that the deer should be

exterminated, nothing happens under this Clause. In other words, the damage could continue. It might be committed by colonised deer and not marauding deer, and even under Clause 6 nothing would be done.
I wish that the Lord Advocate would apply his mind to the fears which have been voiced, not only by hon. Members on this side of the House but by his hon. Friends, and which caused the noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary to accept the word "shall" to strengthen the Clause. A great change is being made which has thrown away the whole protection—

Mr. Maclay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. He looked today with such a jaundiced eye on our Amendments that I began to wonder if he is really cured.
My appeal is to the integrity of the Lord Advocate, to his honesty as legal adviser, not to the Government, but to the House. I ask him to say whether what I am saying is right, that we have now given to the Commission by this change a kind of policy discretion either to decide that the damage can be obviated by something other than control or extermination, or it can be ignored, or the Commission can go ahead and consult the owners with a view to extermination and the killing of so many deer.
The noble Lord has completely blotted his copybook, for it was at about this stage of the discussions of the Bill that he started to grasp what it all meant. I hope he will not take refuge in the kind of majority he can command in the House. That is not good enough. We want him to try to do something to get down to the real wishes expressed by the Committee, that if there is damage something shall be done about it. I am perfectly sure a substantial change is being made here.

Mr. Maclay: I am absolutely satisfied that my noble Friend has done his best to meet what was said in Committee. I see the points which hon. Members are making and I have looked very carefully at the words used in Committee:
the Clause will have to be slightly redrafted, for we ought to give guidance to the Commission…on the way it should exercise its discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Standing Committee, 19th March. 1959; c. 421.]


What, in fact, has happened here is that because of the introduction of the word "shall" my noble Friend knew that he had to make that reservation and there had to be further study to see how the matter would work out.
I agree that, as drafted, the provision is not absolutely obligatory on the Commission to make a scheme. That is for the very good reason that a scheme might not be the best way of dealing with the matter. It would be wrong to say that a scheme must be made. The Commission has to take steps to deal with reduction or extermination, as the case may be, in the way it thinks best. If it does not think that reduction of numbers is the best way, it may have something else in mind.
I do not see that this is anything more than the inevitable and proper power which should be in the hands of the Commission. I hope that the House will accept this as the intention, that it gives the Commission proper powers and that we cannot say to the Commission, "This is the only thing you can do". It allows for discretion, because this is a difficult job. In different parts of the country conditions are different. I think that this Amendment fully implements what we are trying to do.

Mr. D. Johnston: In the event of the Commission answering the question in the Amendment—which it must answer—whether the number of deer should be reduced to prevent further damage, what other steps are open to it? It is not open to it to go to the owner. Going to the owner comes into operation only on the

operation of the word "thereafter". I think that the Secretary of State would agree about that.

Secondly, would he agree that the Lord Advocate, in the advice he gave the House, must be wrong if the right hon. Gentleman is right? The Lord Advocate has told the House that, in effect, the Amendment makes no change from what was in the Bill as it came from the Committee and as it is now before the House. What the right hon. Gentleman said is not that—

Mr. Maelay: I heard the Lord Advocate very clearly, and I think he meant—I am sure he meant—that the Bill which came before the House on Report must be coupled with what was said by my noble Friend in Committee. That was inherent in what he said.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Secretary of State says that it was inherent in what was said, but may I draw attention to what the Joint Under-Secretary said in Committee? The final words of his statement were:
I hope that hon. Members opposite will be satisfied that it will not be difficult to make the provision obligatory instead of permissive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 19th March, 1959; c. 422.]
This Amendment is making it permissive instead of obligatory. Whereas it was obligatory, it is now permissive. How can the Secretary of State say that this is giving effect to everything that his noble Friend said in Committee?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 177.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[7.26 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Diamond, John
Hilton, A. V.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dodds, N. N.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Awbery, S. S.
Donnelly, D. L.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)
Hoy, J. H.


Beswick, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blenklnsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Hunter, A. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bowles, F. G.
Fletcher, Eric
Janner, B.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Forman, J. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Burke, W. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gooch, E. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Carmiehael, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Champion, A. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grey, C. F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cronin, J. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hannan, W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Deer, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Lawson, G. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)




Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Lindgren, G. S.
Paton, John
Stonehouse, John


Logan, D. G.
Pearson, A.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dicekson
Pentland, N.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, G. O.


McCann, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mclnnes, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McKay, John (Walisend)
Rankin, John
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McLeavy, Frank
Redhead, E. C.
Timmons, J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reeves, J.
Viant, S. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reynolds, G. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Mahon, Simon
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mort. D. L.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley VIII)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Moss, R.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moyle, A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Orbach, M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woof, R. E.


Oswald, T.
Sparks, J. A.



Padley, W. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Gower, H. R.
Maddan, Martin


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Grant-Ferris, Wg-Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Atkins, H. E.
Green, A.
Mawby, R. L.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Grimond, J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Barber, Anthony
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Batsford, Brian
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nalrn, D. L. S.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bidgood, J. C.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Peel, W. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bishop, F. P.
Holt, A. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Hope, Lord John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Body, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Braine, B. R.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rawlinson, Peter


Braithwalte Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, John (Test)
Redmayne, M.


Brewis, John
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bryan, P.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roper, Sir Harold


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Carr, Robert
Hyde, Montgomery
Russell, R. S.


Cole, Norman
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, R. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Speir, R. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Storey, S.


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


de Ferranti, Basil
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leburn, W. G.
Temple, John M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Duncan, Sir James
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.
Turner, H. F. L.


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wade, D. W.


Garner-Evans, E. H,
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlln, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wall, Patrick


Glover, D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Goodhart, Philip
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Webster, David







Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Woollam, John victor
Mr. Finlay and


Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 8.—(CONTENTS OF CONTROL SCHEMES.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, at the end to insert:
(c) specify, where necessary, the provision of fencing against the movement of deer on to land used for agriculture, garden ground or forestry.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next two Amendments seem to deal with the same subject, fencing. They are the Government Amendment in line 28, at the end to insert:
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall empower the Commission to impose on any owner or occupier of land a requirement to construct a fence on his land or on any part thereof against the movement of red deer, and for the purposes of this section 'fence' shall include any artificial obstruction.";
and the Opposition Amendment, also in line 28, at the end to insert:
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall empower the Commission to impose on any owner or occupier of land used for agriculture or forestry a requirement to construct a fence on his land to prevent the movement of deer on to that land.
I hope that it will be possible to discuss all three Amendments together. If that is agreeable to the House it will save time. There could be one discussion and, if necessary, two Divisions.

Mr. Woodburn: That will certainly facilitate the discussion, Mr. Speaker.
The Government's Amendment was expected by us if, after consultation and discussions which were to take place, the Secretary of State was unable to find any wording which would meet the wishes expressed in discussion in Committee. It reinstates the subsection which was taken out of the Bill on my suggestion that it would guarantee that the matter could be reopened. It was, therefore, made clear that there would be no charge of bad faith on the part of the Secretary of State in the use of this medium for ensuring a discussion on Report. Should the House not accept our Amendment and should he insist on moving his Amendment, it is accepted that that is not a breach of faith.
Nevertheless, we still hope to persuade him to accept our Amendment. I hope

that he will not insist on moving his Amendment, first, on the ground that it was not in the original Bill and we therefore assume that it was put into the Bill against his desire. It is, therefore, nothing on which his pride or amour pro pre need be offended if he drops the provision which was imposed upon him.
I have moved that the Commission should have the power where necessary to specify
the provision of fencing against the movement of deer on to land …
There is a great distinction between preventing deer from coming off land and preventing deer from going on to land. There was considerable support from hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee for the suggestion that some provision of this kind should be included. The hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean) and Argyll (Mr. M. Noble) both made points in favour of this and put forward examples of cases in which it was difficult to resist the view that it was reasonable for the Commission to have power to specify some kind of fencing.
It was made clear that we have no intention of imposing any unreasonable burden on people who are involved with this problem. Examples were given where the closing of a small gap or the protection of some agricultural land by a very short fence might make it unnecessary to have a scheme, and it seems unreasonable that the Commission must go ahead with a scheme rather than adopt the more sensible alternative of specifying the provision of some fencing.
The words "where necessary" obviously give the Commission entire discretion in the matter. The Secretary of State pointed out on the last Amendment that it is desirable that the Commission should have reasonable discretion and that it can be trusted to make up its mind whether certain things are desirable. In view of the composition of the Commission, I think it very unlikely that it would ever specify unreasonably the erection of fencing against deer. I am, therefore, unable to understand why the Secretary of State does not accept the Amendment which I have moved, as I assume that he will not accept it. I see no fundamental


contradiction between this Amendment and his Amendment. I do not think that they are necessarily alternatives, because we are not suggesting that we should impose on any owner or occupier a requirement which would be unreasonable to construct a fence against the movement of red deer.
The prevention of any kind of fencing contained in the Government's Amendment would rule out my proposal. Surely it is logical to suppose that we should not empower the Commission to impose on any owner or occupier an unreasonable requirement to construct a fence. If the Government Amendment were not moved and my Amendment were accepted, the whole situation would be amply safeguarded. I do not think that the owners of land need have the slightest fear. There was considerable argument in favour of this suggestion from the Government side of the Committee. I had already seen the sense of such a proposal, but the examples given by hon. Members opposite were so reasonable that they convinced me, and I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has not accepted the proposal.
On Report, we have not had a great deal of the reasonable attitude shown in Committee, I am sorry to say. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in his absence the Scottish Committee behaved in a remarkably reasonable way. I have never seen the Government spokesmen so intelligently receptive to reasonable arguments in any Committee on which I have sat. It would be a great pity if, on Report, the presence of the Secretary of State so intimidates those who are in charge of the Bill that this spirit of sweet reasonableness disappears. The Secretary of State has been quite stubborn in opposition to many other reasonable proposals made today, and I hope that he will not be equally stubborn in resisting this Amendment but will accept it and will not move his own Amendment, which would be a very sensible thing to do.

7.45 p.m.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Nobody can complain that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not reasonable and I do not complain that his intentions were not reasonable, in that he said that he had no intention of imposing an im-

possible burden on landowners by his Amendment. The point which worries me is that as I read the Amendment it could impose a devastating burden on landowners if it is to be within the competence of the Commission to require a land owner to erect a deer fence.
I do not know whether the House has fully in mind the cost of deer fencing. Some figures were quoted in Committee which certainly do not coincide with figures which have been given to me by factors in the Highlands. It may be an exaggeration to say that the cost would be £1 a yard, but equally I think that an estimate of £1,000 a mile for deer fencing might easily be less than the actual cost.
Let us consider the problem if it comes to fencing deer out rather than fencing them in. One might have to erect a fence around a single enclosure, 400 yards each way, which is 1,600 yards, almost a mile, and the cost could be almost £1,000. The expense of erecting deer fences can be prohibitive. That is why I compliment my right hon. Friend on reinserting subsection (3) into the Bill.
A further consideration arises, apart from the question of the great expense to a landowner. How is it to be decided which land owner should, in justice, be responsible for meeting that expense, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is accepted? It may well be that deer which come down to the arable ground and which may do damage—the kind of deer against which we want to fence—live in a deer forest a long way from the arable ground. It may be that before they reach the arable ground they cross some marginal sheep ground, where deer are not wanted at all. It may be that it is from this marginal sheep ground that they go on to the arable ground.
It is not at all clear to me that under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment it would not be an obligation on the owner of the sheep ground, who does not want the deer at all, to erect the fence to keep the deer out of the arable ground. Surely that would be a great injustice to the owner of that sheep ground. The Secretary of State is quite right to reinsert subsection (3) into the Bill, and I warmly welcome it.

Mr. Willis: I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider this matter and


not persist in his own Amendment. In the first place, his Amendment is a complete prohibition on the Commission from laying down in a control scheme a provision that any fencing shall be erected. We are dealing not with a mile or two miles of fencing, but, as hon. Members opposite pointed out in Committee, with the possibility that the new subsection would even prevent the Commission from saying that a hole in a fence should be repaired.
That is what the Government would be telling the Commission. Where the Commission draws up a control scheme which, it must be remembered, is drawn up where deer are causing damage, it could even say that an owner or occupier shall repair a fence which may have been broken during the previous two or three weeks, an operation which may cost a few pounds but may save many pounds' worth of damage, and, incidentally, assist the Commission in doing the job which we are giving to it.
It was made clear in Committee that nobody had any intention of approaching this matter in terms of fencing in deer forests. What we had in mind was the fact that a small amount of fencing could frequently stop damage. Why do the Government prohibit that? The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) fears that we might burden somebody with some expense.
Surely, the Government must appreciate that as taxpayers we are already paying a very considerable amount to prevent damage being done to Government property, and the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian talked about the cost of this fencing. Perhaps I might read the letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) concerning the expenses of the Forestry Commission.
My hon. Friend had asked the Secretary of State if he could estimate the cost to the Forestry Commission of putting up deer fencing for the past ten years—not since the inception of the Forestry Commission, but during the past ten years, and this was the reply:
As I mentioned in my reply, the Commission's records do not distinguish between deer fencing and other kinds of fencing. The main reasons for this are—as you will already know—that most of their fences serve more than one purpose, and that many of their deer

fences were first erected as fences against sheep or cattle or rabbits and later build up against deer. Consequently any estimate or expenditure on fencing against deer must be subject to a very wide margin of error.
The Commission have, however, done their best to meet your request for a figure. They estimate that in the last ten years they have put up about 600 miles of deer fencing in Scotland at a cost of the order of a quarter of a million £s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 19th March, 1959; c. 452.]
Here is 600 miles of fencing, which has cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million, and now we are told that we must not expect the owners to be asked to bear any expense at all in respect of fencing. These are men of very great wealth, who were discussed during the Committee stage, when no names were mentioned, but we all knew to whom references were made. They are men who die leaving millions of £s, yet they are not to be asked to spend £100 or £200 to prevent damage being done to some crofter's land. Surely, that is quite preposterous.
Here we are setting up a Commission, which, incidentally, will cost the taxpayer more money still, in order to try to prevent the damage that is being done, but on no account must we ask the forest owners to pay anything at all. Is not this absurd? Is it not ridiculous. The Forestry Commission has spent £250,000, and I have no doubt that other Government establishments spend money for this purpose, though nobody else must be asked to pay. Why not? If some of these gentlemen with very large sporting estates in Sutherland and elsewhere wish to carry on these estates, why should they not contribute towards the conservation of their deer and the prevention of damage to other people's land? They could well afford to do so. Why should they be subsidised by the State instead of being asked to bear some of this expense?
I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what actually happens with a control scheme. First of all, the Commission has to draw up the control scheme, but it does not become effective until the Secretary of State approves it. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State, if he thought that an unreasonable burden were being placed upon some individual who was not in a position to be able to afford to meet the cost, could say "I do not approve of this scheme and I suggest that you


should modify it in such and such a direction."Is not that a sufficient safeguard? It would certainly be one safeguard. Nobody can—and the Commission certainly cannot—impose thousands of £s of expense upon an individual without the approval of the Secretary of State, but let us look further into the matter.
Let us assume that the Secretary of State approves a scheme, which provides that a certain amount of fencing has to be erected. When we come to Clause 11, we then find that if the Commission has to undertake work to complete a control scheme which the owner has failed to do, the Commission can charge the owner with the cost of the scheme. Here, however, we have another subsection which says:
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall preclude the Commission, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from waiving the right to recover expenses incurred as aforesaid in any particular case.
First, we have the check of the Secretary of State, who must approve the scheme, and then the Commission has the power, if it is itself engaged in incurring any expense—and we assume that where the owner could not afford to do it, then the Commission would have to do it—the Commission then has the power, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to waive the charge in respect of that fencing. In other words, the Commission has power itself to bear all the cost of the fencing. Surely, these are safeguards which would prevent anything of the kind feared by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian happening.
For my own part, I feel certain that most of the people concerned in the preservation of the deer forest areas could afford to do a considerable amount of this themselves, but if there are cases where they cannot it seems to me that these are safeguarded in the Bill. In the first place, there is the confirmation by the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that if anybody felt that he was being told to do something which he could not possibly afford he would soon write to the Secretary of State or to his Member of Parliament about it. Why, then, if these safeguards are already in the Bill, should the Secretary of State then prohibit the Commission from laying down in a control scheme that a single yard of fencing should be erected? It is preposterous.
I cannot understand the Secretary of State. He says that we want to do a certain job, and we appoint a Commission to do that job, and yet on almost every page of this Bill we hamper the work of that Commission in one way or another, and we certainly hamper it in this respect. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. What is the good of telling the Commission that it shall frame a control scheme to reduce the number of deer if steps are not taken to keep them off the land where their winter feed is during the winter? It does not matter whether there are a thousand deer or 500. They will seek their feed in winter, and when they cannot get it in one area they will go to some other area.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider, even at this late stage, withdrawing his own Amendment, and accepting the one moved by my right hon. Friend, in the light of the considerations which have been put forward.

Mr. Grimond: Certainly, fencing can be extremely expensive, especially on rough ground, and so, I imagine, can damage by deer. This is an important point which, I see, was debated at some length in the Committee. There it was suggested by several hon. Members with considerable experience, including the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. M. Noble) that some power vested in the Commission to fence off narrow necks of land and so forth might be of use.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State what is to be the exact effect if his Amendment is accepted and if the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is rejected. Is it true that the Commission will have no power to require even the shortest length of fencing to be erected or repaired, or does the right hon. Gentleman think that that power will still exist under other parts of the Bill? In the drafting of his own Amendment, reference is made to constructing the fence. Does that rule out making good any gaps in a fence or repairing it, and does it mean that the Commission will not have the power to require even the shortest lengths of fencing to be erected against deer?
I am rather impressed by the point that although this is certainly a matter of difficulty the Commission can be trusted to


deal with it sensibly, and that it is unlikely to require a very expensive length of fencing in very difficult ground. There is something in the argument that if we are prepared to trust the Commission to know about the land and about the problems of the Highlands, it would not be unreasonable to give it the power at least to fill in small gaps. Perhaps that is covered in some other parts of the Bill. If it is not, and if the effect of the Government's Amendment is that the Commission will be totally debarred from any such action, we should be very careful about removing this power from the Commission altogether.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: These two Amendments provide an interesting contrast. The Amendment that we have moved will protect, or help to protect, the farmer, the crofter, the horticulturist, and the person engaged in forestry. The Government's Amendment is intended to protect the owners of the deer forests.
I am divulging no secret in saying that in one of our largest county councils in Scotland one of the prominent deer forest owners in the Highlands—a nephew of the Prime Minister—has stated openly that this Bill will go through largely as it came in because that is what the owners of deer forests want, and that is the instruction which the Secretary of State is obeying tonight. That is why he is taking up a stricter attitude than did the Under-Secretary, who tried to be accommodating in Committee but who, I am afraid, has been overruled—as we saw in an earlier Amendment tonight.
This is a landowners' Bill. It is a Bill for the deer forest owners, and the Government Amendment is another proof of that assertion.
To make another point of extreme importance, I go back to the Report of the Departmental Committee presided over by Sir John Stirling Maxwell in 1919–20. It says:
It is generally taken to be the law "—
and, if this is incorrect, I am certain that at some stage or other the Lord Advocate will enter the Chamber to say where it is wrong:
that the owner of a deer forest can compel his sheep-farming neighbour to contribute to the cost of erecting a march fence to exclude sheep from the forest.

The Committee says that that has never been taken to judicial decision, but if it has been done since the issue of the 1920 Report I am sure that the Lord Advocate will let us know. The Report goes on:
The owner of the sheep farm has no corresponding right to compel the deer forest owner to contribute to the erection of a march fence to exclude deer from the sheep farm…Where such fences are erected, the proprietor of the sheep farm should have the right to insist on their being made proof against deer as well as sheep.
Neither of those things is being done by this Bill. This part of the Report concludes:
The point which we consider essential is that owners of deer forests should not be permitted to erect with impunity fences to exclude their neighbour's sheep while permitting the exit of their own deer.
I think that there is there a matter of law which must be looked at, because it imposes a disability and an expense on the owner of the farm to the benefit of the owner of the deer forest. Once again, that makes one feel that this is a Bill loaded largely in favour of the person who owns the deer forest. There is another point. The necessity for the deer fence is not disputed—if the Secretary of State thinks that it is perhaps he will tell us where.
The minority Report of the Maconochie Committee says:
The provision of deer fencing is a matter which has been considered by former Committees concerned with the deer control problem "—
and I have quoted one:
and the circumstances today are unfortunately such that the cost of fencing is higher than ever before.
The 1920 Report says just the same thing. The excuse of expense was used in 1920, and it is still being used in 1959. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has just shown, there is no trouble about expense when it comes from the public purse. Then one can pay away as much as one likes.
The minority Report says that fencing is desirable but expensive. That is certainly a problem, but I suggest it can be circumvented, because the writers of the minority Report say that they were referred by certain witnesses
…to the possibility of using an electric fence as a means of keeping deer out of arable or pastoral land. It was suggested that the


provision of a single strand electric fence in addition to the existing stock fence was not unduly expensive…
So at least those witnesses mentioned a method.
These are Reports submitted by two responsible Committees—

Sir J. Duncan: One is a minority Report.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but the fact that one is in a minority does not mean that one is irresponsible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that, because in a little while he will be in a minority. He will be sitting on this side—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The hon. Gentleman is irresponsible now.

Mr. Rankin: I have referred to two important Reports—one a minority Report and the other unanimous—dealing with this subject. Both agree that fencing is necessary. Both say that it is rather costly. But when one always has that argument about cost put forward one feels that it is not as sound as it might be.
I received a letter this morning from a gentleman living in the area where people are suffering from the ravages of deer. This gentleman knows from practical experience what he is talking about and he says in his letter:
Here are my views on the way the Bill is shaping. To my mind fences are still Priority No. 1".
That is the view of an individual who is seeking to farm an area of Inverness-shire where the loss due to deer may run to £2,000 in one year. It is said we must not ask the owner to do anything about fencing. but to this man and others like him fences are still priority No. 1. We have to take note of that. The Amendment we propose, not to fence the deer forests, but to fence the arable, pastural and horticultural land, is of great significance, because this affects the bread and butter of the men and women in the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. Willis: In Inverness.

Mr. Rankin: And in Sutherland. The letter then refers to the question of cost and states:
On my 'family' farm, I am responsible for the upkeep of around eight miles of fencing…

and the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) has the temerity to talk about the cost of one mile of fencing—this is a member of the so-called party of the people talking—to the owner.
The letter continues:
…(not March fencing). As the cost of sheep fencing is 4s. to 5s. a yard, the relative cost and length of deer fencing is not prohibitive. It is 7s. 6d. per yard…
and an easy sum shows that that works out at £660 per mile, not the fantastic figure which the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian gave, of at least £1,000 per mile. This estimate that I have given is from a man on the spot dealing with these things.

Mr. Neil McLean: I think that the hon. Gentleman has given far too low a figure for fencing. The price of fencing is generally agreed to be between £1,000 and £2,000 per mile, which is a much fairer average price for deer fencing. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean) disputes the figure, but he is not disputing my figure. He is disputing a figure given to me by a gentleman engaged in this industry about whose present and future we are anxious. It is not my business to dispute the figure because I assume he is speaking from practical experience and the knowledge which the man on the job acquires.
The writer goes on in the letter to tell me why the Forestry Commission's fences are dearer. It is because possibly they include rabbit netting along the bottom part, but that is not necessarily the fencing we are recommending.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. N. McLean: I was quoting not from practical experience, but from conversations with people who have practical experience with deer. I was quoting from the words of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who said:
I know very well that to build deer fencing at £1,000 or up to as much as £2,000 a mile in some areas is far beyond the means of the deer forest owners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 17th February, 1959; c. 201
The hon. Gentleman can consult his own Front Bench on that matter.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman cannot quote my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton against me, because the hon. Member for Hamilton did not consult me before he gave that figure. Had he consulted me, my hon. Friend might have accepted the expert advice I would have given him.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was also pointing out that there should be a duty placed on the owner of deer forests.

Mr. N. McLean: That does not alter the fact that he gave those figures.

Mr. Rankin: If I have to make a decision on the cost of fences, I must decide on the figures given to me by men engaged in the practical work of farming in the areas affected, and which I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will be able to bear out. According to those figures, it is clear that we are not afraid to put burdens on the crofter and the farmer so far as fencing is concerned, but we are very timorous in putting similar burdens on the owners.
Why is that? One would think that owners were having a very hard time. I wonder how hard that time is. My impression is that they have been doing very well. I have been anxious to get figures about valuation rolls, rentals, acreages and stags—not stag parties—in helping us to assess the ability of the owner to pay, and I now have some figures showing the position. In the concluding stages of the Committee stage of our business I quoted figures from the Stirling Maxwell Report. They referred to a period thirty years ago, but I now have up-to-date figures.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Was it not forty years ago?

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is looking a year ahead—it was thirty-nine years ago.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: My figure for fencing was nearer than that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rankin: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has anything to say he might observe the etiquette of the House and rise to his feet.
I have here a table of rentals, but I will not read it because I want only to take a sample. It is an extract from the valuation roll in Inverness County and shows that the estate of Coignafearn is at present rented at £176 per year by William H. Whitbread.

Mr. Ross: That is a good Scottish name.

Mr. Rankin: It is a name which arouses speculation. I am told that the liquid is good for one, but I do not want to make any further assertions than that, because it might not be the same Whitbread.
The estate is 40,000 to 50,000 acres, and Mr. Whitbread is paying £176 a year. We do not know how much of the estate is above 1,500 feet, because we cannot get the figures. We do not know how much sheep and cattle it is carrying and all that kind of information, because the Secretary of State will not produce the figures.
The sum of £176 a year for that area works out at 1d. an acre. I wonder what the crofter thinks of that sort of valuation when he looks at his own. Mr. Whitbread is being treated more kindly than the crofter. He pays a Id. an acre. These are the people who the Tory Party tells us are hard up and for whom it sings a song of poverty. This man has an assessed rental of £176 a year for 40,000 to 50,000 acres.
One might then ask what sporting value it has? Eighty-five stags are killed on that estate annually. I believe that to be a good figure. According to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. M. Noble), they would fetch about £10 each. That £850 will go to the sporting tenant who takes the let of the estate.
The figure which we want to obtain and cannot obtain is what the sporting tenant pays in rent to the man who is getting his land for ld. an acre. The sporting tenant is paying perhaps £2,000 or £3,000. Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll will rise and tell us the figure. He should know it, because he is right at the very centre. The hon. Member knows that too, does he not? Perhaps he will draw aside the iron curtain which hides the intromissions of these wealthy deer forest owners from the ordinary crofter and the ordinary voter.
I could delay the House much longer on this subject, but I do not want to, because I know that a number of my hon. Friends are anxious to participate. I am sure that after what I have said some hon. Members opposite will feel inclined to comment in more detail on the figures which I have given from, what to me is, a very authentic source.
I hope that the Secretary of State, having heard the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House and weighed them against the very feeble support which he has so far received from his hon. Friends sitting behind him, will withdraw the Amendment standing in his name and accept the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I need hardly say that I rise to support the Amendment and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).
I rather sympathise with the Secretary of State. Through no fault of his own, he was not in continuous touch with us in Committee. He may have suffered, to some extent, a disadvantage from his absence. To some extent, he may have been spared a good deal of discomfort, particularly when I was adducing my own Committee arguments. I also have some compassion for the right hon. Gentleman in his position as a National Liberal when he has to choose between a fence and a hedge, because his party has never been successful in that type of exercise. My right hon. Friends and hon. Friends understand perfectly well the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take into consideration that the main purpose of the support—a certain amount of it coming from the opposite side of the House also, though not to the point of voting—for the Amendment and the proposal embodied in it is to try to protect the farmers, who to a large extent are among the supporters of the party opposite.
I am glad to say that all of them do not now support the party opposite. There is a new dawn of enlightenment in the agricultural constituencies. Norfolk was perhaps the best indication of it. I will not say too much about Galloway. At least the Labour Party has shown that

where rural progress has been made it was consolidated and further advances have been made. Once a start is made in the countryside there is no reason why every constituency should not be "a Norfolk".
What have the farmers to say about it? Of course, the farmers are in favour of the Amendment. I am sure that every farmer everywhere in the country—be he Tory, Labour or Liberal—is in favour of the Amendment. I do not think that any hon. Member will deny that. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite will interrupt me now and deny that farmers would prefer to have protection, if necessary, in the form of fencing as far as their arable land is concerned, from marauding and colonising deer. I am sure that I am correct in making that statement and that all hon. Members will agree with me.
Therefore, the only question left in dispute is whether the landlord shall bear the cost of doing it. That is a purely financial, personally interested, material point, and the people interested in it are the landlords and those who speak for them—not the farmers and not the crofters.
I maintain, however, that there is a wider interest than the farmers' interests, which is regardless of party. There is a wider national interest. What we are trying to protect is, first, arable land; and one of the reasons why we want to protect growing crops is to encourage and protect the winter keep for cattle. Every party in the House has been united, in advocacy and in legislation, in trying to put more beef on the hills in the Highlands and produce more from the soil in order to make the Highlands continuously more viable and less dependent upon subsidies from outside.
There is a public interest in safeguarding the results of subsidies to the farmer and the crofter. We are not subsidising the crofter and the farmer in order to throw the product of those subsidies and the efforts of the farmers and crofters to the mercy of the red deer and the irresponsible people who do not want to give any protection to crops, farmers or crofters against marauding deer. But that attitude has been expressed from the other side of the House tonight.
The only people with whom hon. Members opposite are concerned are the landlords, to protect them from any charge


upon their pockets. They have never for one minute set against that side of the balance sheet the loss to the public, not only to the individual farmer and the farming community, to the crofter and the crofting community, but to the nation which subsidises agriculture. They have never thought of that side of the ledger at all. To a large extent, our subsidies are wasted if our growing crops and increase in hill cattle arc thrown to the mercy of the marauding deer.
8.30 p.m.
Where does the problem of the deer as a pest come from in the first place? It comes from the irresponsibility of the landowners, from their failure to show any regard or concern for the public interest, for the interests of farming, of arable land, or for the interests of the individual crofter and farmer. It has gone on for generations. Commission after Commission has been set up to consider the problem and, in the main, their sympathies—and some of their firm recommendations supported those sympathies—were in favour of the proprietors bearing the cost of fencing-out. Did not the Stirling Maxwell Commission come down strongly with such a recommendation, that the proprietors, without any qualification or reservation, should bear the cost? Of course it did. That was some time ago, in 1922. Other Commissions before that took the same view. Indeed, that has been the view since Committees and Commissions first began to be set up in 1873, when the House itself set up a Committee to consider the problem. The problem has been there for a long time.
The fact of the matter is that the landlords and proprietors, even in the days of almost serf labour, cheap materials and everything else, have dodged the whole problem of protecting farmers and crofters from deer, on the plea that materials and labour had become too costly. We had that argument back in the 1870s. It was the same story; things were so expensive that it was no longer feasible, and so forth. Of course, that argument becomes stronger as time goes on. More damage is done in the meantime; the deer have spread, people have left, the area has become less and less attractive for the farmer and crofter and has fallen more and more into the hands of the large

estates, the landowners, and the deer forests.
In the first place, therefore, the problem has been created by the overstocking of the forests and the failure of owners to keep down the numbers of the deer and prevent them colonising and marauding. Nobody can blame the farmer and crofter for that. One can lay the blame on the system of deer forest management and ownership to a large extent. The reason that protection has not been provided and the deer have not been kept within reasonable acreages is that the landlords have always pleaded poverty and an inability to pay.
As I said, it is important to place against the interests of the landowners the losses to agriculture all the way from the private losses of the crofter and farmer to the subsidies which the State pays to produce in the Highlands more crops which are then destroyed by the pest of the red deer.
We know the attitude of the Secretary of State. It may not be his own personal, instinctive reaction to these Amendments. In Committee and on Second Reading, the Bill throughout bore the stamp of its place of origin in another place. Those who spoke for it most strongly were at their most ardent when they advocated that charges should be put upon the public purse and no charge should be put upon themselves. The people who spoke in another place were, of course, the owners of the deer forests. There are some in this House tonight, too.
We have had various figures thrown down about the cost of fencing. I have taken the trouble to obtain figures which were checked and cross-checked between the people who sell everything from fencing posts to staples and nails in Inverness and the farmers in the neighbourhood of Inverness and in the county. I do not say that these figures would apply necessarily in the forests of Assynt or the forest of Harris in the Outer Hebrides; one must allow for transport and so on, and the allowance might be quite considerable.
I can give right down to the last staple and strand the actual figures in detail. Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to give these figures in detail in Committee; but I did make a fairly good


effort at it nevertheless. The figure works out at about £660 a mile for a deer fence straight from the ground up, starting from nothing, and considerably less for adapting an existing sheep stock fence for deer forest purposes. I shall exaggerate the figure if I say £400 per mile for the adaptation job.
These figures can be checked in Inverness town. Let hon. Gentlemen go to the suppliers; they will tell them there exactly what the price is of each item. I can give these figures to the Secretary of State. I offered in Committee to give them to the noble Lord, but he has never accepted the offer yet. Perhaps he was afraid of being convinced. I can give every little item of cost, checked in Inverness by the people who sell these things with the people who buy them. I leave that offer open to the Secretary of State and the noble Lord. They will find that the figure works out, anywhere in Inverness-shire within the coastline, that is, anywhere except on the islands, at about £660 per mile for a complete deer fence.
I do not think that anyone on this side seriously believes that the figure could ever rise above £1,000, even taking into account costs in outlying places in the Hebrides or the islands, where it does not apply so much.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend agree that the total price would be smaller than most people think because only one fence would have to be erected on the lower slope of the hill?

Mr. MacMillan: Of course, it varies with the terrain; it varies with contour, with altitude, and a dozen other things. It depends also on whether one is concerned with one landowner or one party or, possibly, with farmer, landlord and crofter co-operating. It will vary from place to place according to whether one is doing it on a large scale or a small scale. I make allowances for that. I set the figure at, roughly, from £660 to £800 at the outside in remoter areas, taking the Inverness prices as a basis. If hon. Members opposite really want to challenge these figures, let them go and obtain detailed figures and compare them with those which I have given. I should be glad to set mine against theirs and let them see every single item.
The important part about fencing is that it is, in some cases, one of the few

effective things which the Commission can expect to do in order to protect the farmer or crofter and the arable land against marauding and wandering deer. They cannot always get at the full control of deer without considerable delay. One of the things which will surely provide the best opportunity of giving protection to the land with which we are most concerned is the fencing-out of marauding deer. Of course it is. Every farmer wants it. Every crofter wants it. They all want it, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal.
I am perfectly certain that we can speak for all the farmers and crofters when we say that, if fencing has to be done and it is a matter of payment among private parties, the three of them—farmer, crofter and landowner—then certainly the farmer and crofter will say at once that it is the duty of those who claim the right to make a profit out of it, the monopoly right now, under heavy penalties upon others who shoot and take deer, to protect their neighbours against the irresponsible marauding of their pests. I can call them nothing else.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I am in favour of the Bill. I did not vote against it on Second Reading and I want to see it on the Statute Book. I have not supported the Amendments moved by my hon. Friends up to now, but I think that this Amendment is absolutely right, and unless I hear from the Secretary of State something which seems to be different from the position up to date, I shall support it. It seems to me that it is a complete guarantee against any abuse in this matter because of the sanction that must be given by the Secretary of State.
I am not altogether without some knowledge of the Highlands. I was for three years a Forestry Commissioner and for three years a member of the Nature Conservancy and I had occasion then to go into the Highlands and study its problems.
I am convinced that any possibility of improvement of land in the Highlands, either for agriculture or for forestry, is impossible unless the deer are controlled. I remember very well going to Glen Affric, on the south shores of Loch Benevean, on behalf of the Commission, to see an area where there was a considerable possibility of re-establishing the


old Caledonian pine forest. It was impossible to do so because one could see by walking about that the damage done by deer was preventing any reestablishment of the natural forest.
The higher land was in the hands of a private owner of a deer forest. There was evidence that the private owner should be held liable, either in part or in whole, with sanction to be obtained from the Minister if he thought that the Forestry Commission would bear some of the cost. The situation was not satisfactory and could not be allowed to go on. I believe now that the position is that the whole of the land is in the hands of the Forestry Commission.
That is the kind of problem with which this Amendment would deal. Last year I was on the south shores of Loch Maree, where the Nature Conservancy has an area in which it is carrying out some interesting experiments in re-establishing the old Caledonian pine forest by manuring and draining the land. Deer fences had to be erected there. I inquired into the question of expense, which has figured so much in this debate, and I do not see why it should not be possible to cheapen the cost by using electric fences. I would like to know what they would cost, because their use has cheapened fencing for agricultural purposes in the south of England.
What is true of Loch Maree is true also of Loch Rannoch, where an attempt is also being made to re-establish the old Caledonian pine forest. It was in the hands of private owners, but it may now be under the Forestry Commission. Certainly, deer are the cause of the difficulty.
My hon. Friend has rather stressed deer forests as being the main cause of the trouble. My feeling is that they are not anything like as important as they were in the past. They are still a nuisance and must be dealt with, but most private owners are trying to improve their land either by planting or by agricultural improvements. Although it may be true that there are still some troublesome areas with which this Amendment would deal, I do not think that they are so serious a problem.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I would remind the hon. Member that this is the Report stage, and that he has already spoken once.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member had given way to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not affect the position. The hon. Member has already spoken.

Mr. Rankin: Can I not interrupt? On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, already in the course of the debate, and during the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, interruptions have been frequent. Do I take it that you are now altering that practice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the rule on the Report stage is that an hon. Member cannot speak more than once on one Amendment.

Mr. Price: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you will allow my hon. Friend to say what he wants to say?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot alter the rules. I am bound by the rules.

Mr. Price: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I bow to your Ruling. I would like to have heard what my hon. Friend had to say, but now I must speak to him afterwards privately.
I will conclude by saying that if the Secretary of State cannot accept the wording of this Amendment, I hope that he will at least produce another one which will embody its main principle, namely, that owners of land on which there are deer which are the source of trouble should be made to contribute towards fencing in their deer, and thereby protecting those who are trying to improve their land, either by agriculture or by forestry.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I have listened to this debate with the greatest care and I thank hon. Members for the moderation with which they have put their case. I know that during the Committee stage, which I followed closely in HANSARD, concern was expressed about the problem of fencing by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I confess that it is tempting to give power to the Commission to require fencing in certain conditions. I assure the House that we have studied this problem with the greatest care, to see if there is any conceivable way in which we could get a workable proposition which, while not going the whole distance of the Opposition's Amendment,


would, nevertheless, meet the problem. We have not been able to find a method—I will explain why in a minute—and I thought it right to table this Amendment in my name to make the position quite clear.
In reply to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), one of the main reasons why I think it is essential that the position should be made clear beyond peradventure is that if the Commission had any powers at all, or loose powers for imposing on owners the obligation to erect fences it would be in an impossible position as to when to exercise its powers and when not to do so. I agree that the consent of the Secretary of State could be lying behind it, but even with that the problem would be a very difficult one for any future Secretary of State, quite apart from myself if I had such a problem put before me. What would the criterion be? It might be just a little gap in a fence which needed filling in. This would save a lot of trouble, but the obligation would have to be imposed. What length of fencing would be reasonable? It seems impossible accurately to define the whole problem or give any guidance on it.
In discussing the Amendment, we are thinking only in terms of the proprietor or landlord who is not willing to be reasonable. Therefore, it will require the imposition of the obligation to erect fencing or mend gaps. I think all hon. Members will agree that with the great majority of landlords it will not be a question of imposing a scheme in order to erect a bit of a fence, as the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) put it very reasonably when he said that it would surely be better to have a short distance of fencing rather than a whole scheme. If that is the position, I cannot believe that in the great majority of cases it will not be easy for the Commission to secure a solution by discussion with the landlord. I return to the point that, unless we impose an obligation to do a prodigious amount of fencing, I cannot see that we can get any halfway compromise which would produce a workable proposition which the Commission or a Secretary of State could possibly administer.
I will deal briefly with the question of cost. I do not want to become entangled in the detail of all the different figures

which have been quoted. I suggest that it is not only cost which is involved. In a great many cases it is very nearly practicability which is involved. One may have fences running over high ground with rock and everything else, and the cost will be far in excess of the actual price of the fencing. There will be the cost of getting the material over the ground and up very steep hills and getting the fence posts into rock. I have had experience of putting a very small fence over a piece of stony ground. It looked a perfectly simple proposition, but in the end I was sorry I was tempted to do it. It was a terrific job. It was only a 4 ft. fence, but we had to put the posts into solid rock and cement them in position before the fence would stand. There is an immense problem of practicability if one is thinking in terms of wide fencing over the deer forest area.
Two lines of thought were running through the arguments produced by the Opposition. One concerned the comprehensive scheme. I think that it was the view of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire that it was not reasonable to imagine that we could embark on a terrific operation all over Scotland. I do not think that was the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). As he developed his argument, I thought he was making a case for fencing in the whole of the deer forests of Scotland or fencing out on a very big scale.

Mr. Willis: I said precisely the opposite.

Mr. Maclay: I thought that was what the hon. Gentleman was implying. That seemed to be behind the remarks of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I said exactly the opposite.

Mr. Maclay: Both hon. Members went into a long diatribe—

Mr. MacMillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be in order for us to repeat our speeches so that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to exercise his reason and understanding?

The Deputy-Speaker: That would not be in order.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As you ruled that an hon. Member cannot interrupt, surely it is grossly unfair if the Minister misrepresents what hon. Members have said and they cannot correct him.

The Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. All I laid down was the old rule that an hon. Member cannot speak twice on the Report stage.

Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members are jumping ahead of my argument. I heard what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and the hon. Member for the Western Isles said. My point is that they both went into the argument—to some extent the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) did also—that there are many landlords in Scotland who could easily afford to do the whole job. If I have misunderstood them I apologise and I accept that they also were talking about moderate sized fencing.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You have said that we cannot interrupt. Is it fair that the Secretary of State should be allowed by you to provide the incentives for interruption when we cannot respond?

The Deputy-Speaker: An hon. Member can indicate dissent, but he may not make a second speech.

Mr. Maclay: I welcome the opportunity to rectify the matter if I have misrepresented hon. Members, but I have my views on what I said.
I repeat that it is arguable what the cost would be exactly, and it is obviously arguable because of the utterly different conditions of terrain, height and everything else encountered. Some areas may be over 3,000 feet high, and too much could be involved.

Mr. Willis: Crofts?

Mr. Maclay: I am not talking about crofts. At the moment I am dealing with forests. If one comes to the question of crofts and smallholdings—[Interruption.] There are too many conversations going on in the Chamber at the moment. [Interruption.] If I sat down hon. Members would say that I had not replied to the debate.

Mr. Ross: It will be the same if the right hon. Gentleman continues.

Mr. Maclay: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) mentioned the cost of £1,000 for a farm, and was taken to task over the figure. He mentioned a mile of fencing for a farm. That is no exaggeration for fencing to go round a small farm. If we multiply that by the very large number of smallholdings or small farms which might need fencing, we become involved in large sums of money. I do not want to over-elaborate the argument about costs, except to point out that it could become a very large item to people who are trying to work the land in the deer forests. Not everybody who owns a deer forest is all that rich.
The next point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend was that the provision of fencing would present a real problem in terms of deciding who was the right person to pay for it. Should the cost be borne by the person on whose land the farm or croft is situated, or by the person who owns the forest from which the deer are assumed to have come? It may not be possible to prove that they have come from a certain forest, and we should be involved in a very tangled and difficult subject if we tried to discover exactly who should bear the costs, or how the costs should be apportioned. It may be very difficult to determine from whence the deer come, especially where two or three forests meet.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention of the Opposition's Amendment, and with the speeches made about it in Committee. I have given the matter the most careful consideration in order to try to find some means of meeting those arguments, or even finding a workable compromise which would not impose an almost impossible task upon the Commission in having to decide when it should act in this respect, and an almost impossible burden of costs upon those who might be landed with the task of erecting the fences. I repeat that there would be a very serious problem of practicability in certain conditions. That being so, I thought it only right to put down the Amendment, which makes it clear precisely how the Bill stands in this respect.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry that, as a compromise, the Secretary of State did


not agree to allow the Bill to retain its original form by suggesting that both Amendments should be dropped. I am prepared to make that bargain even now.
I am also sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) introduced the question of £1,000 a mile, because he immediately created the impression that hon. Members on this side of the House were thinking in terms of hundreds of miles of fencing. He completely sidetracked the issue. All the fears that have been expressed are quite easily disposed of by looking at the composition of the Commission. Anybody doing that and then thinking that the Commission would impose costs upon landlords should have his head examined. The composition of the Commission is such as to ensure that no costs will fall upon landlords.
The Secretary of State has already fortified himself against anything unreasonable being done. The scheme requires his confirmation, and when he wants to drag us over 3,000 miles of stony ground—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three thousand feet."] I am sorry—3,000 feet of stony ground; the one is as reasonable as the other—I begin to think that there is something in the argument that a person's character absorbs something of his habitat. When the Secretary of State was talking about the stony ground into which he had to dig his fence I began to see how his heart had been affected when it came to the question of considering

Amendments sympathetically. The stony ground is getting inside him.

Mr. Maclay: rose—

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order.

Mr. Maclay: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order.

Mr. Rankin: Are you now treating the rich differently from the poor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? If I have no right to interrupt, how does the Secretary of State acquire the right?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Secretary of State wishes to speak again he does not require the leave of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: It is quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to be affected by this stony ground and to become more resistant to our driving wedges of reason into his argument.
We do not want to prolong this matter, because we have other Amendments to discuss, but we must register our disapproval of the Secretary of State's attitude by voting against his Amendment. I hope that even at this late stage he will vote with us, because the composition of the Commission is a sufficient guarantee that nothing serious will happen to any landlord.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 169.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 28, at end insert:
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall empower the Commission to impose on any owner or occupier of land a requirement to construct a fence on his land or on any part thereof against the movement of red deer, and for the purposes of this section 'fence' shall include any artificial obstruction."—[Mr. Maclay.]

Clause 24.—(UNLAWFUL TAKING OR KILL ING OF DEER BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER.)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, after "Act", to insert:
and take or wilfully kill two or more deer and use a vehicle to transport the carcases.
An effort is made in Clause 24 to define a gang. We understood when this

Bill was first introduced that it was very necessary to have this Clause because there had been a tremendous amount of gang poaching in Scotland. It was commonly believed, following the report of the Scott Henderson Committee some years ago, that in Scotland there was a widespread practice of gangs of people going out at night with motor cars, vans or lorries armed with Sten guns or automatic weapons, spraying bullets into large herds of deer by the roadside, and therefore it was necessary to have new legislation dealing with this problem.
This picture would seem to have been a figment of the imagination of the Scott Henderson Committee in the first place. Hon. Members opposite appear to be shaking their heads, but I am bound to say that in another place, when the Second Reading was being moved by Lord Forbes, the Minister of State for Scotland, he said that these gangs were working
…sometimes with Sten guns or other such weapons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th November, 1958; Vol. 212, c. 565.]
Since then I have been seeking to ascertain from the Ministers whether there is evidence of Sten guns and other automatic weapons being used in Scotland, and they have had to reply that they have no evidence of Sten guns or other automatic weapons having been used for the purposes of poaching. These were the people that we were going to get at under the Bill, but as they no longer exist, the Lord Advocate has just moved an Amendment to take out Clause 23 (3, b).
Under Clause 24, which defines a gang, if the fictional John Macnab went out with a tinker's boy whom he befriended and took a deer, instead of being guilty of an offence under Clause 22 of the Bill, and liable to the penalties under it for ordinary poaching, he would become liable to the heavier penalties under Clause 24. I invite hon. Members to look at the kind of penalties. In paragraph (b) he would be subject
on conviction, on indictment, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
This is the kind of imprisonment that can be imposed on John Macnab if he gets out in company with the tinker's boy to take a deer. It is in those circumstances, and because we are anxious to get at the gangs who go out with motor cars and take a number of deer in the


middle of the night and cause great cruelty, that we think heavier penalties should be imposed. So we seek to limit Clause 24 to those persons and say that if two or more persons commit an offence under Clause 22 and take or willfully kill two or more deer, using a vehicle to transport the carcases, it would be proper to regard them as a gang and to impose heavier penalties.
If John Macnab and the tinker's boy were to take two deer and use the tinker's cart to transport the deer, they would still be dealt with under Clause 24 if this Amendment were accepted, but it is reasonable to suppose that people who poach and commit a wrong should he liable to some penalties. We would be satisfied with the penalties written into Clause 22 as the Bill is drawn and we would only want the heavier penalties set out in Clause 24 to alight upon the commercial poacher, who is guilty of causing great cruelty to deer.
The John Macnabs were never cruel to deer. They did not wound them, and they still do not wound them. The traditional poacher is the best shot in the Highlands. Therefore, we do not want to get the traditional poacher under Clause 24. We want to catch the new type poacher who goes out in the company of two or three other people, who uses not Sten guns and other automatic weapons but ordinary shot guns, firing them into a herd of deer, taking 6, 10 or 12 and sending as many more back into the deer forest maimed, perhaps to suffer great pain and to die some two or three miles away.
We want to get at those people and punish them by the heavier penalties under Clause 24. It would be a tragedy however, if the heavier penalties intended for those people were to alight on the crofter and his son or the farmer and his son who are found guilty of an offence under Clause 22 of the Bill because they had acted together. Therefore, I hope that the saving provision of this Amendment, namely, that the gang will be composed of two or more persons acting together and taking or wilfully killing two or more deer, using a vehicle for transporting the carcases, will be accepted, because without it Clause 24 would be far too objectionable for any reasonable person to accept.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lord John Hope: This point was one on which we had one of the most thorough debates during the long journey of the Committee stage, and I was extremely grateful to both sides of the Committee for the constructive and extremely interesting suggestions that were made.

Mr. Willis: Nothing has been done about that.

Lord John Hope: Let the hon. Gentleman bide his time.
We wanted very much—I think the Committee knew that I was very anxious about it—to find a way in which we could get into the net the commercial gangs which both sides of the House want to punish severely without even risking getting into the net someone who was not intended to be brought in. It seemed that the most promising line of approach was the common factor of the vehicle on the ground that gangs never operate without one. The Opposition have coupled with that the possession of carcases.
There are, unfortunately, about both these qualifications loopholes which would certainly be found by the gang poachers. It would not be very difficult for a gang to hide the carcases and then return and remove them one by one. There is no doubt that it would be perfectly possible for a gang which had arrived in a vehicle to conceal it at some little distance from the scene of operations, and then if offenders were caught without the vehicle they could not be charged under Clause 24.
Another possibility which arose in one's mind in this connection is that if we had the vehicle provision it is very probable that gangs would take to cutting up the carcases on the spot and going off down the glen with a couple of haunches each slung across their shoulders. That would not be at all difficult to do. Therefore, there was no constructive approach left which would fill the gap and also make it a cast-iron certainty that no one could ever be prosecuted under Clause 24 who ought not to be.
There are two further things that I wish to say. First, hon. Members will recollect that the penalties here are maxima. In this debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will tell the House the instructions that he intends to give so that what we all


want will be accomplished in terms of carrying out Clause 24. As to the merits of the Amendment itself, hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will realise that I tried very hard to find a way out of the difficulty, and I have tried very hard since, but I am satisfied beyond any doubt that there is no way round the problem which would give perfection.

Mr. T. Fraser: There must be many hon. Members in all parts of the House who are very disappointed at the Joint Under-Secretary's speech. The hon. Gentleman said that he is prepared to have the net so close that no possible person who is a gang poacher will escape and that he will willingly take the risk of capturing some innocents in his net, persons who were never intended to be caught by the heavy penalties in Clause 24.
The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as the Lord Advocate does that there is no instruction that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could send to procurators or anybody else in Scotland which would determine the decisions the courts will reach in 1965 or at any time in the future. The courts will look at the Act and will see that where two or more persons acting together take a deer—which nobody owns—they will render themselves liable to penalties of £500 and a period of imprisonment up to a maximum of two years. If the Government cannot do better than they have done the House ought in common sense and decency to vote against them.

The Lord Advocate: I agree that the penalties in the Clause are high. They were described in very strong terms by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the House was asked to picture the case of John Macnab going out on the hill. Some eight years ago the House might have been asked to imagine the case of John Macnab and somebody else going out to poach salmon. The same penalties were then imposed for similar circumstances. One wonders how the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, was ever passed. Some bad things have been said about it, and apparently everybody dislikes it. However, my experience is that that Act, with possibly one isolated exception, has worked extremely well. We took the penalty Clause for the gang

poaching of salmon and made it applicable to gang poaching of deer.
10.0 p.m.
My noble Friend said that I would indicate how I proposed to deal with the matter if the Clause went through in its present form. I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton that it is for the court to decide. On the other hand, the court is not able to deal with an accused person until that person is brought before it. After the salmon poaching Measure was passed in 1951 an instruction was sent out from the Crown Office giving certain advice to Procurators-Fiscal. The House will remember that an indictment runs in the name of the Lord Advocate of the time, and the authority of Crown counsel has to be taken before proceedings are started on indictment.
Because of the misgivings expressed in Committee and again today, and the fear that the Clause could be used against the crofter and his son out on a hill, on unenclosed land, I propose to follow the precedent set in 1951. The Government have said consistently, from the Second Reading stage through the Committee stage and again today, that the Clause is intended to deal only with poaching by the commercial type of person. Since the Committee stage my noble Friend has struggled to see whether a way could be found of defining this commercial type of poacher but, as he said, it has been quite impossible to find a suitable form of words.
The best that I can do to reassure the House is that I will undertake to inform the Procurators-Fiscal of the fact that the Clause is intended to be used against the commercial type of poacher and not John Macnab out on the hill. I can assure the House that if I give an instruction similar to that which was given in 1951 there will be no danger of the Clause operating against the wrong type of person.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The Lord Advocate was not up to his usual stanlard—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] Perhaps he was, but I think he was not—in taking the salmon poaching Act as a comparison. His argument went very far afield. We know that it is a reserve argument which the noble Lord and his colleagues have avoided using too much because they are conscious of its weaknesses.
I am no apologist for the salmon poaching Act. When it went through the House I made it clear that I thought it was a thoroughly bad Measure, and that we were wasting Parliament's time in putting it through instead of far more important legislation—just as we are wasting the time of Parliament tonight, putting through a far worse piece of legislation when we have any amount of unemployment and other vital problems to deal with. This is trifling with the time of Parliament.
To give this Measure priority, and to have spent 15 or 16 sittings in the Scottish Standing Committee on it, is an impertinence when our people are hunting for jobs all over the country, and when so many other and more vital matters require to be tackled by legislation which the Government have not the guts to introduce. People are "fed up" with deer and everything connected with them.
The Lord Advocate drew an analogy between this Bill and the salmon poaching Act. I wish that he had been a little more logical. We expect it of a Member who holds his office. The purpose of the salmon poaching Act, which he says has been effective, was to prevent the further depletion of already heavily depleted stocks of salmon. That is not the purpose of the Bill, in respect of deer. The whole reason for the Bill is that the countryside in the north is overwhelmed with this pest, which is preying upon agriculture and is an absolute nuisance to farmers and crofters.
In the case of the salmon poaching Act we were justifiably afraid that our salmon stocks would be depleted. It was profitable for gangs to go out with explosives and to blow up rich pools, or to use cyanide, so causing further depletion. There was a real danger of salmon stocks being reduced to next to nothing, and the quality being greatly reduced. That is not the position with red deer. They have been multiplying, colonising, marauding and preying upon crops and winter keep. This has prevented us from putting more beef on the hills in the north-west of Scotland. The Lord Advocate should not have used that analogy, and I am surprised that he did. But he has made a concession. He will tell the Procurator-Fiscal, "Do not have John Macnab. Wait

until you can prove that he is a commercial gangster." But if two John Macnabs go out, by the definition in this Bill the are commercial gangsters so far as the law is concerned.
The courts will not look at what is said tonight in this Chamber or pay regard to the suggestion of the Lord Advocate—this little off-the-cuff, benevolent concession by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to the Procurator-Fiscal. The courts will look at the Bill and try to interpret the intention of Parliament in their own way. The Lord Advocate said that the 1951 Act relating to salmon has been effective. It is just as effective against the John Macnabs as against the commercial gangs, and that is one of the complaints which I have against it. The Bill will he more ferociously effective against John Macnab if he takes his son with him when he goes out on the hill, and thus, for the purposes of the Bill, they become a gang of commercial poachers.
There is nothing in the Bill to instruct the Procurator-Fiscal not to proceed against the poacher who takes his son with him, as every poacher does in the Highlands. That kind of thing is traditional and has been going on for generations. No one has spoken against it, not even the landlords who introduced this Bill in another place and have supported it in its passage through this House. They have ignored the ordinary, decent traditional poacher taking something from his native hill for the family pot. That kind of thing is recognised as being traditional.
Now, the most reactionary body of people who ever sat on the Government Front Bench have produced the worst Bill which has ever been produced—a rag of a Bill. And we have this nice, genial, well-intentioned suggestion on the part of the Lord Advocate to the Procurator-Fiscal, "Do not hurt John Macnab. Do not bully him. Do not put him in gaol or fine him hundreds of pounds—unless he brings his son out with him when he goes to get a deer carcase in the traditional way." What a concession!

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 161.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[8.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W
Diamond, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salsford, E.)
Dodds, N. N.
Hunter, A. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Beswick, Frank
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Janner, B.


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, A
Forman, J. C.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Blyton, W. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Grey, C. F.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grimond, J.
King, Dr. H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Hale, Leslie
Lawson, G. M,


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hamilton, W. W.
Ledger, R. J.


Carmichael, J.
Hannan, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Logan, D. G.


Cliffe, Michael
Hilton, A. V.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Holmes, Horace
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holt, A. F.
McCann, J.


Cronin, J. D.
Howell, Charles (Perry Ban,
Mclnnes, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hoy, J. H.
McLeavy, Frank


Deer, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


da Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
MacPhereon, Malcolm (Stirling)




Mahon, Simon
Redhead, E. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reeves, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mason, Roy
Rhodes, H.
Timmons, J.


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Viant, S. P.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wade, D. W.


Mort, D. L.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Moss, R.
Ross, William
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Moyle, A.
Short, E. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Willey, Frederick


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Oswald, T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Padley, W. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W, R. (Openshaw)


Parker, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Paton, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Winter-bottom, Richard


Pentland, N.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, John
Woof, R. E.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stones, W. (Consett)



Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Rankin, John
Sylvester, G. O.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gurden, Harold
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, R. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Partridge, E.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, W. J.


Barber, Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Barter, John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Batsford, Brian
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hope, Lord John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ramsden, J. E.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rawlinson, Peter


Bingham, R. M.
Howard, Hon. Grevllle (St. Ives)
Redmayne, M.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, John (Test)
Roper, Sir Harold


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Body, R. F.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Russell, R. S.


Braine, B. R.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Sharples, R. C.


Brewis, John
Hylton. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Shepherd, William


Burden, F. F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Speir, R. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Storey, S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spenoer


Davidson, Viscountess
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Deedes, W. F.
Leburn, W. G.
Teeling, W.


de Ferranti, Basil
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Temple, John M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, McA.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


du Cann, E. D, L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Sir James
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Elliott, R.w. (Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farcy-Jones. F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turner, H. F. L.


Gammens, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gibson-Watt, D.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wall, Patrick


Glover, D.
McMaster, S. R.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Goodhart, Philip
Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Webster, David


Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Woollam, John Victor


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Millligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.



Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E, &amp; Chr'ch)
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Short, E. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M,
Sparks, J. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, R. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stonehouse, John


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Diamond, John
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda W.)


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mclnnes, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Watkins T E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
White Henry (Derbyshire N.E.)


Grey, C. F.
Mahon, Simon
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Willey, Frederick


Hale, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Williams, David (Neath)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hannan, W.
Mitchison.G.R
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Moss, R.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holmes, Horace
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, R. E.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Oswald, T.



Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hoy, J. H.
Parker, J.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Duncan, Sir James
Iremonger, T. L.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castieupon Tyne, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Armstrong, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Atkins, H. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barber, Anthony
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barter, John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Batsford, Brian
Gibson- Watt, D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Glover, D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Leburn, W. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Godber, J. B.
Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)


Bidgood, J. C.
Goodhart, Philip
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gower, H. R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bingham, R. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lioyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bishop, F. P.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Longden, Gilbert


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Loveys, Walter H.


Body, R. F.
Green, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bonham-Carter, Mark
Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Braine, B. R.
Grimston, Hon. John(St. Albans)
McLaughlln, Mrs. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow. W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brewis, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Brooman- White R. C.
Gurden, Harold
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bryan, P.

McMaster, S. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cole, Norman
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mawby, R. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nairn, D. L, S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Page, R. G.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Partridge, E.







Peel, W. J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Turner, H. F. L.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Speir, R. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pilkirigton, Capt. R. A.
Storey, S,
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wall, Patrick


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ramsden, J. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Webster, David


Rawlinson, Peter
Teeling, W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Redmayne, M.
Temple, John M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John Victor


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Yates, William, (The Wrekin)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin



Sharples, R. C.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Whitelaw.

Clause 9.—(LIABILITY OF OWNERS OR OCCUPIERS UNDER CONTROL SCHEMES.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, at the end to insert:
and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment".
This is the second of the penalty Clauses, and again we have found it possible to stiffen the penalty. We now suggest adding for a second and subsequent offence a fine of £100 and/or three months' imprisonment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL SCHEMES.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, after "requirement", to insert:
or is failing to take such steps as may be necessary to carry out that requirement".
It might be convenient if we take this Amendment with the next following Amendment, in line 40, after "Commission", to insert:
after giving reasonable warning to the said owner or occupier".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Fraser: Clause 10 says that
If the Commission are of the opinion that any owner or occupier of land upon whom a requirement is laid by a control scheme has failed to carry out that requirement, it shall be the duty of the Commission to carry out the requirement if they are satisfied that it is still necessary so to do.
The purpose of the Amendment I am moving is to secure that the Commission will be able to intervene if in its opinion the person upon whom the requirement has been put under a control scheme
is failing to take such steps as may be necessary to carry out that requirement.
We think that then the Commission should agree to step in and in the second Amendment we provide that before stepping in the Commission should give
reasonable warning to the…owner or occupier

of the land. When considering these two Amendments, hon. Members should look back to Clause 8 to see what a control scheme may include. They will appreciate that a control scheme may very well put a requirement upon an owner or occupier to carry out a series of measures over a long time to reduce the number of deer on that land or, in some cases, to exterminate the deer altogether.
As Clause 10 is drawn, it would appear that after a scheme has been made and the requirement imposed on the owner or occupier the Commission is powerless to do anything until the owner or occupier has failed to carry out every requirement put upon him by the scheme. It may be that very quickly the Commission will have good reason to believe that the person concerned is failing to take all the necessary steps to carry out the requirement imposed by a control scheme. I feel sure that those who wish to see the Commission getting ahead with its job and the deer being controlled in the interests of other users of land, who are suffering damage at present, will agree that the Commission should be given some discretion to step in if in its opinion the person upon whom the requirement has been put is failing to take the steps necessary to carry out the requirement.

Mr. Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Lord John Hope: I think that the House will agree that the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in moving the Amendment is reasonable and understandable. The Opposition are anxious lest somebody upon whom a requirement has been put simply does nothing whatever about it until it is so late, although it may not be the end of the specified period, that it is impossible for him to carry out his duty. It is suggested that at that point the Commission, seeing that he has failed to begin the work early enough, should be able to step in, even though the specified time has not quite elapsed, and say to him, "It is impossible for you to do the work in the next two or three weeks. You have had three months in which to do it. We shall therefore begin without further ado."
That is a reasonable apprehension, and at first sight the Amendment is attractive.


May I, however, put two points which occurred to me after I had considered this matter at length? I am sure that the last thing the Opposition want to do is to enable the Commission to step in too early, as a result of misjudgment on its part. against an owner who may have very good reason for what the Commission thinks unreasonable delay and who may be quite confident that he can carry out his obligation in time, although the Commission, which does not know the land as well as he does, might disagree with him.
That is the risk which we should have to run under the Amendment. I therefore asked myself whether the substance of what the Opposition want to achieve is not already achieved in the Bill as it stands. I submit to the House that it is. If the Commission is to lay a duty upon an owner over a period of time, which will often happen, it will be open to the Commission to phase that duty. If it were to say, "You must kill so many deer over so many months", there is nothing to stop it from also saying, "You must kill so many a month".
It would thus be open to the Commission to step in. without the Amendment, when any one phase in this long operation had not been carried out by the owner. In such a case it would be stepping in before the job was finished, which is what the Opposition want. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable desire, but I suggest that it would not be reasonable to run the risk which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, in view of the fact that if the Commission handles the matter properly it will be able to step in should the owner fail to carry out any phase of the requirement. For that reason, I recommend that we leave the Clause as it is.

Mr. T. Fraser: In spite of what the noble Lord has said, I think that the Clause would be improved by the wording of our Amendments. These are not the most important Amendments on the Order Paper, however. I think we had better simply have the Amendment which I have moved negatived and proceed to the next business.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12.—(POWER OF COMMISSION TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT.)

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out "and" and to insert:
(2) Any agreement in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection shall, unless the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State otherwise decided, provide.
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee. I hope that this time the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will be with me in my theory that I gave an acceptable undertaking on that occasion.
The Clause provides for the provision of services and equipment by agreement between the Commission and any owner or occupier of land for the purpose of killing deer or disposing of the carcase. At present, the Clause provides that the Commission "may" recover expenses. In leaving the Commission this discretion it was intended that it should be able to bear the whole or part of the cost itself in cases where it would be unreasonable or unfair to charge the owner or occupier in full.
The Amendment obliges the Commission to recover its expenses, but leaves scope for discretion in cases of hardship. The only practical difference in the scope is that under the Amendment the Commission cannot exercise its discretion unless it obtains the approval of the Secretary of State. The result of the Amendment would be that the recovery of expenses under this Clause would be put on the same footing as recovery under the previous Clause, which dealt with charges for default work under a control scheme.

Mr. Willis: I should like to thank the noble Lord for having met us on this point. I raised this matter on the Committee stage, and I am glad that he has seen his way clear at least to accept one suggestion that we made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.—(ENTRY ON LAND.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out:
not exceeding one month and".
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment. I think it is a reasonable one, and that the Clause, as drawn with these words in it, is not reasonable. I made my case on


this matter in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." in Committee, and I do not want to weary the House by repeating what I then said.
May I just say that this deals with the Commission's right of entry on to land by
any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission.
This right of entry is likely to be used, I should think, mainly, although not exclusively, for the purposes of Clauses 7 and 10 for making decisions about what should be in the control scheme, and, ultimately, for the purpose of enforcing a control scheme under Clause 10.
It may well be that the control scheme will necessitate persons being on the land for a considerable period of time, perhaps running into several months. If we leave in the words which this Amendment proposes to take out, it will not be possible for the servants of the Commission, authorised to go in to enforce a control scheme and to give effect to a control scheme, to remain on that land for longer than one month at a time.
As the Joint Under-Secretary said in Committee, if this subsection remains as at present drafted, when the servants of the Commission have been one month on another person's land, carrying out the provisions of a control scheme, they will come off that land, and the Commission will be able to give fourteen days' notice to the person owning the land that its servants are going back to finish the job. They will be laid off for two weeks while the owner is given the fortnight's notice or warning which he is required to have under this subsection.
It is clear that the persons authorised by the Commission to do its work, particularly on Clauses 7 and 10, will, in some cases—I do not know how many—require to be on the land for a period exceeding one month, and there seems no reason why the period should be limited to one month. Within the context of the Bill, if we take out these words, the Commission will have to exercise a discretion, and will write into the notice the period during which its servants will require to have entry on to the land. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will regard it as a most reasonable Amendment and that he will find no difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.

Lord John Hope: I quite appreciate that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) hoped that I would be able to respond to this Amendment by advising the House to accept it, but I do not think that he will feel that it would be at all easy to do that.
That the period should not exceed one month is reasonable on these grounds if on no other; that it really would not be fair to place some one on endless notice, as it were, that his land was likely to be entered upon as of right. Activities may be going on on the land that involve a certain amount of danger—shooting, for example—and, in fairness, the man must have a fairly accurate idea of the limits of the time in which entry may be made.
As the hon. Member for Hamilton himself recognised, the position is not in any way compromised at present, because the notice can be, and would be renewed—

Mr. Willis: But the Under-Secretary is misreading the Clause. The period has to be set out in the notice, whether or no these words are in the Clause.

Lord John Hope: Yes, I realise that, but I was arguing that a period not exceeding one month was reasonable.
It is relevant to point out to the House that, as far as precedent goes, the period in Section 82 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948 is 14 days, and I think that, compared with that, what we propose is a fairly generous advance. It is not as though the situation were lost, so to speak, to the hon. Member for Hamilton, if the Amendment is not carried. It is perfectly safeguarded and, in terms of equity, I suggest that it is much better to leave the period at one month so that the man knows that that is the maximum, but knows, also, that if it has to be renewed, it can be.

Mr. T. Fraser: There can be no precedent in the annals of Parliament for a Government to set up a Commission by Statute with so little confidence in that Commission's good sense. We do not yet know who the chairman and members will be, but they will be selected by the Secretary of State, who says that the Commission will write into any notice


it serves the period of time during which its servants can enter on a person's land—and a person, incidentally, from whose land deer have come to do serious and continuous damage to the agriculture or forestry nearby.
The Under-Secretary says that notwithstanding the fact that the Commission knows full well that its servants will require to be on the land for a period of, say, six months, we, in Parliament, will not give it the right to write that period into the notice but that there must be written a period not exceeding one month. After that, a further notice will have to be served saying that the servants of the Commission will return on the expiry of 14 days. Therefore, by this provision, they have four weeks on and two weeks off.
I thought that the Amendment was so reasonable that it really was not necessary to argue it again here after it had been discussed in Committee, but this is the most foolish and blockheaded opposition I have ever seen to a sensible Amendment. Why does not the hon. Gentleman show some confidence in the Commission which he is seeking power to set up by this Bill? Does he think that if it had to send someone to do a job that would take only three days it would write into the notice a period of four months, six months or nine months? The notice would state that the period necessary for the Commission's servants to enter on the land was three days. Why should we by Statute say that the period may not be more than one month? Will not the Joint Under-Secretary make some concession to common sense and accept the Amendment?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I think that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is reasonable. Surely the Under-Secretary of State must realise that if this job is to be done, and he knows it has to be done and will take considerably longer than a month, it is the height of stupidity to order these people off the land so that in a fortnight they can come back again. I am sure that the Under-Secretary cannot have understood the point or he would not have rejected the Amendment in the way he has. Surely, even at this late stage, it is possible for common sense to prevail and

for the Under-Secretary to accept the Amendment.

Lord John Hope: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has understood the position. It is not a question of the amount of time spent on the land; it is a question of the period during which there is authority to make entry. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's argument went to the former point.

Mr. Hoy: No.

Lord John Hope: In that case, his argument is even more incomprehensible.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17.—(OFFENCES IN RELATION TO EXECUTION OF THIS PART OF THIS ACT.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13 to leave out "twenty pounds" and to insert:
fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment".
This is another penalty Amendment and relates to the offence of obstruction. Much was said in Committee about the seriousness of this offence and we agree that the original penalty was not steep enough. We propose a penalty of £50 for the first offence, and £100 or three months for subsequent offences.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: As I raised this during the Committee stage of the Bill, I should like to thank the Lord Advocate for having considered the arguments put forward by myself and some of my hon. Friends and for having adjusted this so that the penalties relating to this part of the Bill are now more equitable, though I got into trouble for using that word in Committee in relation to the penalties in other parts of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move: in page 8, line 29 to leave out from beginning to "the" in line 30 and to insert:
 'agriculture' and 'agricultural land ' have the like meanings as in".
The purpose of the Amendment is interpretation. Much was said in Committee about whether horticulture should be specifically added alongside agriculture in connection with the control


scheme. There was a certain difficulty in putting in horticulture without putting in the various other forms of agriculture, and we think that the best way of ensuring that horticulture is covered is to pick out from the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, the definition of agriculture, which includes horticulture.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maclay: Mr. Speaker, may I have your guidance on the next Amendment, in page 9, line 3, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act
and the Amendments in line 35, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act
in page 10, line 4, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act
and in line 7, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act "?
These Amendments are tabled as signposts to warn people reading the Bill that they must also consult Section 33. What will be the most convenient way of debating the Amendments? The sole purpose of the Amendments is to ensure that anyone reading this part of the Bill will realise that he must also look at Section 33. This is an attempt to make it very clear.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the Amendments all go together. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the later Amendment, to Clause 33, in page 14, leave out lines 12 to 25 and to insert:
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section twenty-one of this Act, or of any order made thereunder, it shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands, or for any person authorised by him in writing in that behalf, to take or kill during a close season any deer found on any arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent grass (other than moorland and unenclosed land) forming part of that land, or on such woodlands, as the case may be.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act, it shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands to take or kill during the period specified in that subsection any deer found on any such arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent grass as aforesaid, or in such woodlands, as the case may be.

(5) The provisions of the last two foregoing subsections shall be construed as one with the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
is not also included.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It might perhaps be more convenient to the House, because the Amendments I have mentioned stand whether or not the later Amendment is accepted.

Clause 21.—(CLOSE SEASONS FOR RED DEER AND POWER TO MAKE CLOSE SEASONS FOR OTHER SPECIES.)

Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 3, at beginning insert
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act".—[Mr. Maclay.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, to leave out from "imprisonment" to end of line 30.
The Government were much pressed by the Opposition in Committee that certain penalties in Parts II and III were too severe. We agree that, so far as the close season penalties are concerned, it is unnecessary to prescribe a penalty for conviction on indictment. The effect of the Amendment is to remove the penalty for conviction on indictment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(PROHIBITION OF POACHING.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, at beginning insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. D. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, to leave out "twenty" and to insert "ten".
Clause 22 is meant to deal with the traditional poacher. We have all been agreed, in Committee at least, that there is a tradition of poaching in the Highlands, and that, whether it be right or wrong in law. it is not morally wrong. Indeed, it is acceptable. The House might like to recollect that the last and best book on poaching was written by a Member of the Government side, the late John Buchan's John Macnab.
It perhaps adds a little to the gaiety of poaching if there is a penalty and a chance of being caught. I suggest that the penalty suggested to be imposed by Clause 22 of £20 and the forfeiture of the deer illegally killed is somewhat heavy. It is more than a decent sporting


poacher should be asked to bear. Therefore, I suggest that we should delete "twenty" and insert "ten", as on the Notice Paper.

The Lord Advocate: I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment. I agree that there is very little between £10 and £20. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) says that a penalty makes poaching all the gayer. A higher penalty will make it gayer still. I should hate to think that the poacher would be deprived of some gaiety by having to avoid only a small fine like £10. I quite agree that £20 will practically never he imposed, but one must remember that the carcase of a deer is a fairly valuable thing today, worth about £10, I understand. Without wishing to be hard-hearted, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 1 to 3.
This is an extremely sad moment for me, because I made an impassioned speech in Committee and almost satisfied myself that these words were absolutely essential. Front the benches opposite, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), followed, in a strong constitutional approach, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Fast (Mr. Willis) said that we were prostituting the law of Scotland. That argument has evidently fallen on the ears of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. and the result is that we have decided to take out these words.

Mr. D. Johnston: I thank the Lord Advocate for what has been done. I think that his second thoughts, or the second thoughts of the Secretary of State—it matters not which of them—have been much better than their first. It would have been deplorable if we had, as this subsection sought to do, cast the onus of proving innocence upon the accused person rather than leaving it to the prosecutor to prove guilt. We are much obliged to the Government for that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(UNLAWFUL TAKING OR KILLING OF DEER.)

Mr. Speaker: I think that the next two Amendments, in page 10, line 4, and in

page 10, line 7, are consequential upon what has already been said. Does the right hon. Gentleman move the first of them?

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act

Mr. Charles Doughty: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, which is going so fast, but I want some clarification about these words. If one looks at Clause 23, though I know that it would be subject to the provisions of Clause 33, one finds that it provides that:
Any person who takes or wilfully kills deer between the expiration"—
and so forth. What do those words mean? I am asking merely for some clarification. Can the Lord Advocate help us on that?

Mr. Maclay: It was intended to move these Amendments formally because the whole effect of Section 33 will be discussed when we reach the Government Amendment to Clause 33. I think it would be very difficult to deal with the matter piecemeal.

Mr. Doughty: It would not be difficult at all. Clause 33 deals with certain exceptions, and I am talking about the rules. The rules are laid down in Clause 23, not Clause 31 Clause 23 provides:
Any person who takes or wilfully kills deer
and so on. I do not know what that means.

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) if he is in order, but it seems to me that if he is now asking for an explanation of the words of subsection (1) of the Clause he is not in order in asking for that explanation. We have before us an Amendment which merely seeks to put in the words:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act".
Incidentally, the Amendment is one of a series of Amendments which were taken altogether, all the discussion, we understood, taking place on the first one.

Mr. Doughty: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to deal with it at greater length, I will do so with pleasure. If he looks


at Clause 33, he will see that subsection (1) provides:
A person shall not be guilty of any offence…in respect of any act done for the prevention of suffering by an injured or diseased deer
and there are other matters which are allowed as exceptions to Clause 23.
I want to know what Clause 23 means. If one is to have an exception to that Clause, one must know what the Clause means. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, I am perfectly in order in asking this question. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will deal with the matter and say what Clause 23 means before we consider the exceptions to it.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting the House in some difficulty. These Amendments were explained en bloc by the Secretary of State for Scotland at an earlier stage when I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was here. The House agreed to the first one as typifying a number of them. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has really missed his opportunity of raising this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Secretary of State move the Amendment in page 10, line 7, which is, I think, one of the ones previously referred to?

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section thirty-three of this Act".

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out from "imprisonment" to the end of line 21.
This is another case in which we find it unnecessary to press for conviction on indictment. It is unnecessary, we think, in Clause 23.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(UNLAWFUI, POSSESSION OF DEER AND FIREARMS.)

Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, to leave out "is in possession of" and to insert "has used".
It may be convenient if we consider with this Amendment the next three Amendments in line 12, to leave out from "Act" to "that" in line 13, in line 21, to leave out "is in possession of" and to insert "has used", and in line 24, to leave out from beginning to "that".
There was considerable criticism on both sides of the Committee of Clause 25 on the ground that it would enable people to be charged with unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition on suspicion that they intended to commit an offence. These Amendments meet that point. Their effect will be that it will be pos-

sible to charge a person with unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has actually used them already to commit an offence. Before he can be convicted the court will have to be satisfied on the evidence that he did, in fact, commit the offence. There will be no question of a person being charged or convicted on suspicion of intention to commit an offence subsequently.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 12, leave out from "Act" to "that" in line 13.

In line 21, leave out "is in possession of" and insert "has used".

In line 24, leave out from beginning to "that".—[Lord John Hope.]

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 11, line 27, at the end to insert:
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any owner or occupier of agricultural land who is found in possession of any deer or firearms or ammunition on the land which he owns or occupies.
I think that the purpose of the Amendment is fairly clear. It is a reasonable Amendment and I should like to think that the Government will accept it, but experiences earlier this evening do not give any reason for hope in that respect.
The Clause deals with a person who is found in possession of deer or firearms so as to give a constable—one person—reasonable ground for suspecting that he has come by the deer illegally and that, as the Clause has just been amended by the Government, the firearms have been used for the purpose of committing an offence under Clause 22, 23 or 24.
The House should note that a person picked up under this Clause need not necessarily have committed an offence under Clause 22, 23 or 24. He need not have been found committing an offence. He need only have been found in possession of deer or firearms or ammunition in a way which gives one witness reasonable ground for suspecting that he came by the deer by committing an offence under Clause 22, 23 or 24, or that he has used the firearms or ammunition for the purpose of committing an offence under Clause 22, 23 or 24.
I hope that the reason for the Amendment is obvious. Any agricultural owner or tenant has the right to take deer to protect his crops. If he is found in possession of deer, therefore, we ought not to provide that a single witness can obtain a prosecution against him, that witness being the constable who has picked him up and who has ground far suspecting that he may have come by the deer not by taking it for the protection of his crops under Section 43 of the 1948 Act but by committing an offence under Clause 22, 23 or 24. Such a person could be convicted and punished as if he had committed an offence under those Clauses.
A single witness can charge a man and his evidence can be taken in court as quite adequate. That is notwithstanding all that the Sorn Tribunal said the other

day in the Waters case about the sanctity of our law and the need for corroborative evidence. Under this Clause one witness, without any corroboration, will be able to obtain a prosecution against a farmer who is in possession of a firearm and ammunition, which every reasonable person would expect him to possess for the purpose of protecting his crops.
The whole purpose of the Clause is to make it easy to obtain prosecutions on the evidence of one witness. We are saying that we ought not to enable prosecutions to be obtained easily against a farmer who is found in possession of deer, in view of the fact that he has a right to have a carcase on his farm and to have firearms for the protection of his crop. We ought not to enable that to be done against a farmer found in possession of firearms or ammunition on his own land.
Under the Amendment, if a farmer or crofter is found in possession of deer, or firearms or ammunition on land other than his own, it will still be possible for him to be picked up under this Clause, but if he is found on his own land and found in possession of deer, firearms or ammunition, to which he is perfectly entitled for the protection of his crop in certain circumstances, I hope that the Committee agrees that he ought not to be punished under Clause 22, 23 or 24. He ought not to be picked up under this Clause and punished as if he had committed an offence under Clause 22, 23 or 24 when he has done nothing of the kind. I hope that the Amendment commends itself to the House.

Mr. D. Johnston: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Lord John Hope: I am sure that, in a given case, the occupier's rights as an occupier will be just as fully known to the authorities as they are to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. The Amendment would have the effect of making the agricultural occupier's own land a sanctuary for him, so that if he had been poaching elsewhere he would be freed of all penalties provided he got back to his own land before he was caught. There really can be no justification for that. There is no reason why this idea of sancturary should apply


to a man who has committed the relevant offence outside, just because he happens to have got back to his own land on which, as everyone knows, he would be allowed to shoot a deer in the circumstances mentioned.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the prosecution can show that, notwithstanding the fact that the man was on his own land before being picked up he had committed an offence under Section 22 of what will be the Act, he would be prosecuted under Section 22, and similarly under Sections 23 and 24. The Under-Secretary should know that, and, if he does not, he should get some advice from the Lord Advocate.
By this Amendment we are seeking to protect the occupier. Many hon. Members with knowledge of the Highlands must know the dangers we have in mind, and must know full well that notwithstanding the fact that the crofter, the occupier, the tenant is back on his own farm before he is picked up, if the prosecution can show that he committed an offence on any other land he will be prosecuted under an earlier Clause. But this Clause is calculated to deal with the person who cannot, for one reason or another, be prosecuted under Clauses 22, 23 or 24.
The Under-Secretary, in his efforts to satisfy some of the worst elements in the Highlands, does not care whether he takes into the net the humble crofter or farmer who has suffered great losses, whose crops have been taken by these marauding deer over the years. He has not been able to claim compensation for that, but now he runs a grave danger, merely by taking a deer to protect his crops, of having imposed on him the savage penalties of Clauses 23 and 24.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: If this Amendment is not accepted, is there not a very grave danger of a miscarriage of justice? Is it not quite possible for a crofter, having quite legitimately shot a deer on his own land, and having been found in possession of the carcase and the firearms, to come under suspicion of having poached the deer and so liable to the penalties set out just because some poaching has taken place outside his own land? If there is to be any sort of fairness in this business at all, the Government should do something to protect the

ordinary crofter, and give him some safeguards.
As things stand at present, the provisions of the Bill are very heavily weighted against the ordinary crofter who is looking after his own land and crops—and, indeed, engaging in the traditional poaching for the pot. I understood that the purpose of these changes in the law as set out in this Clause was primarily to remove the cruelty associated with gang poaching, instead of which it is becoming more and more clear, as we reach the closing stages of this Bill, that it is being used by the land-owning interests and this Conservative Government to protect the old-fashioned shooting rights of private property.
That is the only possible justification for the Minister's refusal of this very moderate and reasonable Amendment. The Government could have accepted this provision, and so made sure that the crofter on his own land, his own farm, would have had safeguards.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the Secretary of State will speak on this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has advanced a very cogent argument, and the same argument was put by hon. Members opposite in Committee. Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Waters Tribunal, which commented very severely on the dangers of accepting the evidence of only the one witness? Surely, with something affecting so many people who are cultivating the land he will heed the warning of that Tribunal. If he does not intend to do something about altering the law as to the one witness, he should at least accept this Amendment so as to ensure that nobody suffers injustice.

Mr. Maclay: I can assure the House that we have been very anxious to give all the protection that is reasonable and proper, but I do not think that this Amendment is a practicable one to accept without opening up possibilities of poaching. The wording of the Amendment is not suitable and it is difficult to find other words to get over the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
The owner or occupier of agricultural land might be someone who is not a crofter, about whom we are all thinking and want to help, but someone linked up


with a gang poaching operation in the big town. These things are not unknown. It might be someone who, to take an extreme case, bought a small farm with this operation in view. I do not know how we could catch such a person if we accepted the Amendment.

Mr. D. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman could catch the man in the ordinary way. It would be proved that he had committed an offence. All that the Clause does, in effect, is to allow the offence to be proved in a particular way by saying that if a man is found in possession of a gun or of a deer that shall be a presumption that he has committed an offence. That allows the Crown to charge him with that offence. Is that not so? If that is so, it allows a person who is perfectly legitimately m possession of a gun on his own land or of a deer shot on his own land to be charged with these offences.

Mr. Maclay: The court must be satisfied that the deer and the firearm are connected with the condition laid down in an earlier Clause. They do not stand by themselves. I think that hon. Members opposite are raising bogys which are never likely to arise. I do not believe that the person about whom we are really concerned will suffer under the Clause. It is more likely to enable us to get the gang poacher whom everyone agrees we want to resist.

Mr. Willis: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we are really quite wrong in our anxiety about the Clause. He must surely realise that the same anxiety has been expressed in newspapers as widely different as the Manchester Guardian and the Sunday Express, both of which have condemned the Clause.
The Clause is a bad Clause, and the man who ought to be defending it is the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be defending the Clause instead of just sitting on the Front Bench and letting the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary take the can back for it. It is a Clause that breaks most of the traditions of Scottish law and most of the principles. The Lord Advocate knows that. But, of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman defended the Clause in Committee

on the astonishing principle that we had to depart from these principles of Scottish law to catch the culprit.
I am staggered at such an admission, and, of course, the Secretary of State has virtually said the same thing tonight, that we cannot catch the culprits unless we have the Clause. Are we to depart from every principle in our legislation, principles which have been at the back of our system of justice in Scotland for centuries, to make it simpler for the Government of the day to catch the culprits? Is this the new philosophy of the party which stands for the freedom of the individual? If so, that is an astonishing doctrine.
As I have said, this is a bad Clause. We have tried at least to give the crofter and the farmer some protection against the worst effects of the Clause. It is very late now, but, otherwise, we could give the right hon. Gentleman a number of examples of how the ordinary crofter or farmer can be caught under the Clause, and very easily caught. through no fault of his own when simply trying to defend his own crops.
The right hon. Gentleman is not concerned about that. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that we have got to catch someone. It is a shocking position which the Government have reached. To try to catch somebody, they are prepared even to perpetrate a Clause of this description and not even consider Amendments designed to mitigate its worst effects.

Mr. Grimond: Even at this late hour, I must intervene because I believe that there is wide anxiety about the effect of the Clause. We have to weigh against the possibility that a few poachers may get off the possibility that we depart considerably from well-established principles and also the possibility that some innocent people may conceivably be put in jeopardy.
I am not very much impressed by the Secretary of State's argument that people are likely to take farms or agricultural land so that they can engage in mass poaching. I feel that he might give serious thought to the possibility that there is no justification for this provision and consider whether there are not sufficient penalties already in the Bill for poaching, without departing so far as the


Clause appears to do from what have again and again been stated to be essential safeguards for the individual.

Amendment negatived.

" (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section twenty-one of this Act, or of any order made thereunder, it shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands, or for any person authorised by him in writing in that behalf, to take or kill during a close season any deer found on any arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent grass (other than moorland and unenclosed land) forming part of that land, or on such woodlands, as the case may be.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act, it shall not be an offence for an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands to take or kill during the period specified in that subsection any deer found on any such arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent grass as aforesaid, or on such woodlands, as the case may be.
(5) The provisions of the last two foregoing subsections shall be construed as one with the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948."

Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss, at the same time, the Government Amendment to the Third Schedule.

Mr. Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Maclay: I hope that the House will forgive me if I give a little detail about this Amendment, because it is important. Two points are covered, the savings on the prohibition in the close season and the savings on night shooting. I will, if I may, give the explanation of the Amendment in technical terms, and then I will try to explain precisely what it does in relation to the present position and the position under the Bill.
The new subsection (3) of Clause 33 has substantially the same effect as the old subsections (3) and (4). The old subsection (3) provided a saving for close season killing by tenant-occupiers of agricultural holdings or enclosed woodlands and persons with their written authorisation exercising their right under Section 43 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, to kill deer on their enclosed land.
The old subsection (4) exempted owner-occupiers, or persons with their written authorisation, from any penalty for killing deer on their enclosed land during a close season. The new subsection (3) deals more simply with the matter by dropping the distinction between tenant-occupiers and owner-occupiers; but the right to kill during close seasons is still restricted to occupiers or persons with their written authorisation killing on enclosed land.
The new subsection (4) fulfils an undertaking which was given earlier to con-

Clause 33.—(SAVING FOR CERTAIN ACTS.)

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out limes 12 to 25 and to insert:

sider whether a formula could be found to exempt the agricultural occupier who shoots deer in defence of his crops from the prohibition on night shooting. Its effect is that an occupier of agricultural land, or of enclosed woodlands, will not be guilty of an offence against Clause 23 (1)—the night shooting provision—if he shoots a deer at night on enclosed land forming part of his agicultural holding or on his enclosed woodlands

The new subsection (5) links the two preceding subsections with the 1948 Act, which contains in Section 43 the provision conferring on a tenant-occupier of an agricultural holding or enclosed woodlands the right to kill deer on his enclosed land. Going one further stage, I hope that the House will permit me to say a word about the next Amendment, because it has a bearing on what I am now saying.

The Government Amendment to the Third Schedule is for the purpose of repealing subsection (2) of Section 43 of the 1948 Act, which provided that a tenant-occupier should not exercise his right of shooting during the hours of darkness. If the subsection were left un-repealed, the tenant who shot deer by night on his enclosed land would not be guilty of a criminal offence—by virtue of the new subsection (4) in the Amendment—but he might be liable to proceedings against him by his landlord, that is, civil proceedings. The repeal of subsection (2) of the 1948 Act gives the tenant-occupier an absolute right to shoot at night in the circumstances mentioned in the new subsection (4).

10.45 p.m.

This is an important Amendment and there is one more explanation I ought to


give which may help the House. The existing law, quite apart from the Bill, is as follows. It is not a criminal offence to shoot deer at night. No one, however, has a right to shoot deer at night except the landower or someone permitted by him. Anyone else who shoots deer at night risks a civil action of interdict. The effect of Section 43 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, is that an agricultural tenant or a person authorised by him may, even without the landowner's permission, shoot deer on enclosed land forming part of a holding by day but not by night. That is the position as the law stood.

The effect of the Bill is that Clause 23 (1) makes it an offence for anybody, whether owner, tenant or anyone else, to shoot deer at night. The effect of the Government Amendment is to secure that it will not be a criminal offence for an occupier to shoot deer at night on his enclosed land. That relates to subsection (4). The occupier will in future have a civil right to shoot deer at night as well as by day on his enclosed land.

I hope that has made the intention of the Amendment clear. I recognise that it is a difficult matter, and we have given it a great deal of thought. There is a case—I know it very well—for stopping all-night shooting. That was the view that we held at first, but we have listened very carefully to what has been said and we recognise that it might be hard on people who have to do some night shooting—occupiers only—if the right were taken from them. We have done our best to find a formula which will meet the situation.

Mr. D. Johnston: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have a little difficulty in understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment to the proposed Amendment, for it refers to "woodlands" in line 9, and I do not see "woodlands" in that line.

Mr. Johnston: The explanation, Mr. Speaker, is that the word "woodlands" begins in line 8 of the proposed Amendment. Would it be in order to deal with our Amendment to the proposed Amendment now?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. D. Johnston: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 9, after "woodlands', to insert:
or for any person authorised by him in writing in that behalf".
We recognise the difficulty that the Secretary of State and the Government felt in moving their Amendment, but I think that, on balance, they have come to a very proper conclusion. The effect of the Government Amendment is, on the whole, beneficial, but I notice what may well be an omission. It allows an occupier to shoot during the close season under Clause 21, and it also allows him to authorise another person to shoot during the close season. The other part of the Government Amendment allows the occupier to shoot, in effect, in defence of his crops at night, but it does not allow a person authorised by him to do so. The Amendment proposed by me would allow him to do so.
It is clear that some shooting during forbidden hours must be allowed on some occasions; that fact is recognised by the Secretary of State's Amendment. It is also known that there are many old crofters who have not used a gun for many years, and who would much prefer a person authorised by them to do the shooting than to do it themselves. Under the terms of the Government Amendment that is not possible. In many cases I imagine that the crofter concerned would want to have the shooting done for him by a stalker employed by the Commission, and such a person would be an admirable choice. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Maclay: I realise why the hon. and learned Member has moved his Amendment. At first sight it seems illogical to refuse the right of delegation of authority to shoot at night, when it is allowed in the close season in daylight. We have considered this question very carefully. To begin with, night shooting is dangerous, and it is only because we feel very strongly that something should be done that we have gone as far as we have. The delegation of powers to shoot at night has two great disadvantages. First, it means that not just the occupier but somebody nominated by him might


be shooting at night and, secondly—and more seriously—it provides too easy a loophole for the commercial poacher to get an authorisation.
This question has been examined by the experts, who assure me that if we allow this authorisation it would not be too difficult for the gang poacher or the commercial poacher to make use of that fact to explain why he had deer in his possession, or why he had shot a deer. It would be easy for him to get away with it.
The hon. and learned Member has in mind the older people, who are not able themselves to shoot. The ideal time to shoot marauding deer is probably at the first hour before dawn—which is not in the night. Under the terms of the Bill it is daylight. Night time is from an hour after sunset to an hour before sunrise. If an elderly crofter is having this sort of trouble he can get somebody to shoot for him at that hour in the morning. It is also possible for him to scare deer off by firing blanks, or making appropriate noises. I agree that that will not reduce the number of deer, but then the proper way is to get the deer dealt with as marauding deer.
Although I understand the purpose of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment I must ask the House to reject it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Third Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Mr. MacIay: I beg to move, in page 20, line 39, column 3, at the end to insert:
in section forty-three, subsection (2).
I dealt with the point of this Amendment when making my speech on the previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen' s Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to thank all those hon. Members of the House and of the

Scottish Standing Committee who have worked so hard on the Bill. I would also thank my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for all that they have done. They have kept me closely informed of what has been going on and I have tried to follow the work on the Bill as closely as I could.
While obviously not every point is agreed we have produced a Bill which has long been needed and will fulfil a very real need in the Highland areas, and all those areas where deer are present. I cannot accept the idea that this is an unnecessary Bill. I do not believe that farmers and crofters who have suffered damage to their crops for years think that it is unnecessary. I believe that they think it necessary. It has been a standing disgrace that for years we have not had a close season for red deer. I believe that we are the only nation in Western Europe not to have a close season. There has also been the appalling problem of wanton cruelty which has arisen from the gang poaching.
The Bill is timely, necessary and wanted by a great many people in Scotland and a great many people who follow some of the problems that have arisen during the Bill. But even more important than meeting the wishes of those who wanted the Bill, is the fact that it will contribute to the cause we are all concerned about—a more healthy economic life in the remoter parts of our country.
I believe that the Bill does contribute to that. I emphasise again that the agricultural need for it was great. I believe that the Bill as amended can do the job it is designed to do. In my recollection, no Bill that has gone through the House has ever proved perfect for evermore, but this Bill is a very great step forward. We have needed it for years and I have great pleasure and confidence in commending it to the House for its Third Reading.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: Having heard the Secretary of State's speech, I cannot now believe that he did read the Committee stage proceedings of the Bill, nor has read the leaders in a great many national newspapers on its provisions, otherwise he could not have made the kind of speech that he has just delivered.
We all thought that a Bill was necessary, but very few people think that this is the Bill that was needed. The Secretary of State has just spoken about the need for the Bill to protect our agriculture and, as he said, to bring about some economic improvement in the remoter parts of our country. He must be unaware that we moved Amendments in Committee upstairs to secure that the Commission would have powers of determining land use so that some economic prosperity could have been introduced into some of those remoter parts. But his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary resisted all the proposals to improve the Bill by changing the functions of the Commission and bringing them into closer relationship with the proposals of the committee set up by the Nature Conservancy at the invitation of the then Minister, Lord Home.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that many hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies would be obliged if you would give a Ruling on the point I raised this afternoon, whether a document should be available for study by hon. Members when it is quoted by a Minister in support of a Bill and shown to be the basis of the Bill. Had we had a copy of the report of the committee concerned, we should have seen how inadequate was the consideration given to the so-called interests in this matter. The so-called interests which were to get together to consider what should be done about the red deer did not include a single representative of the crofters in the North of Scotland. They were completely ignored, and they have been almost completely ignored in the Bill.
We think it right that a Commission should be established, but we do not think this is the right Commission. We were told during the Committee stage discussions that the different subsections did not represent the organisations stated by name in the report of the Nature Conservancy committee. We thought that the Commission would be composed of people appointed because of their administrative ability and concern for the Highlands. We thought that the Commission would be given the opportunity to take decisions about land use which, one gathers, is what the committee suggested. But all that has been ignored. The composition of the Com-

mission is so tightly balanced between the conflicting interests that it will not do a good job. Its functions are far too circumscribed.
The Secretary of State has resisted all efforts to improve Part I of the Bill, because he wanted to give the landowning interests and the sporting interests every possible loophole and way out from doing what the needs of agriculture and forestry dictate ought to be done.

Mr. Maclay: Nonsense.

Mr. Fraser: I agree that it is nonsense to expect that the Commission will do a proper job with the functions given to it.
No one who has taken part in the discussion on the Bill can fail to be aware of the concern of the Government that no obligation shall be placed on the owner of any land if it is going to take anything out of his pocket. There is a provision that the Commission may not impose any duty to put up a single yard of deer fencing. Is the House aware that the Secretary of State informed me by letter a few weeks ago that the Forestry Commission had erected 600 miles of deer fencing to protect trees from the depredations of the red deer?
The Forestry Commission, acting for the taxpayers of the country, put up 600 miles of deer fencing, but in the Bill the Secretary of State has provided that the Red Deer Commission shall not have power to instruct an owner to put up a single yard of deer fencing, so concerned is he that this Commission shall impose no hardship or burden on landowners and sporting interests.
On Part III of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman resisted all Amendments that were calculated to see that the Bill, when enacted, would do what its authors claim they want to do. When we sought to secure that Clauses 22 to 25 should be so amended that penalties should not alight on persons for whom they are not intended, the Secretary of State, the Joint Under-Secretary and the Lord Advocate were at pains to see that we should avoid every possible loophole. No loophole is to be provided for the crofter, the farmer, the person making proper and best use of the land, using our land which brings economic wellbeing to the Highlands in crofting, agriculture and afforestation.
There is no economic advantage to the Highlands in the cultivation of red deer for sport, none at all, but the people who develop our land for the purposes of agriculture and forestry, and have their efforts very largely frustrated by the depredations of red deer, are not to have any protection because some may be gang poachers in disguise. That has been the attitude of the Government throughout.
We on this side of the House want a Red Deer Commission. We want it to have powers of conservation and control of red deer. We wish we had a Commission differently composed from this one. We wish that the Secretary of State had given a different kind of Commission far greater powers than those given in the Bill. We believe in the close season. Incidentally, it should be noted by the blindest supporters of the Treasury Bench that the persons against whom the close season is to be imposed are sporting tenants. Those are the persons who have been shooting deer in the close season. I can see hon. Members on the Government benches shaking their heads in con-tradition of what I say. One of them told the committee what a successful poacher he was.
It was said by another spokesman for the landowners, the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), that some of the deer forest owners, some of the sporting gentry, were taking deer out of season because it paid them to do so. We are getting the close season in Part II of the Bill to restrain some of those sporting gentry who had been causing quite unnecessary cruelty by taking deer at the wrong time of the year.
Part III is quite vindictive. For the Lord Advocate, in advocating Clause 25 today, to say that it was picked out of the 1951 Act dealing with salmon poaching, was a bit too smart, because that Measure dealt with weapons which had no legal use, whereas the weapons dealt with in this Bill are firearms which every farmer and crofter possesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) pointed out earlier this evening, when we were dealing with salmon we were dealing with one of our native creatures which was fast disappearing from our midst. The rivers were being denuded because of the activities of gang poachers

and very grave concern was being expressed about it by ordinary fishermen and landowners among others. Some action had to be taken.
Here we are not worried because the red deer are in danger of becoming extinct. We are concerned because the amount of damage done by them has been increasing year after year and the Secretary of State has been doing nothing about it, despite his powers under the 1948 Act which, incidentally, were the subject of favourable comment by the committee set up under the Nature Conservancy. By the Third Schedule of the Bill he is removing those powers. He no longer wants the powers which he has at present, because he is giving powers to the Red Deer Commission. He has failed lamentably to exercise the powers which Parliament gave him and he hopes that the Commission will carry out the wishes of Parliament a little more effectively than he himself has done.
We shall not oppose the Third Reading. We want a Bill to do many of the things which at first flush the Bill seems to set out to do. We very much fear, however, that the Bill will not have the effect which the Secretary of State forecast in his speech in which he moved the Third Reading. Time alone will tell.
I regret that the Secretary of State has paid so little attention not only to the suggestions and advice offered from this side of the House, but also to the advice offered freely in the national Press and by not a few expert contributors to many of our leading newspapers. It is a great pity that he has paid so little attention to some of the advice which has been given by such organisations as the N.F.U. in Scotland. It is a great pity that some hon. Members opposite, who sometimes boast, particularly on election platforms. of the high office which they hold in the National Farmer's Union, have so let down the N.F.U. in the speeches which they have made during the passage of the Bill.
The noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary of State seems to think that this is a joke. He seems to think that hon. Members are entitled to boast of being spokesmen for the National Farmers' Union and then to make speeches here arguing against Amendments which have been suggested by the N.F.U. and put on the Notice Paper by hon. Members


who think that such Amendments might at least be canvassed in the House and its Committees.
We hope that we are wrong in forecasting such a wishy-washy future for the Commission. Time alone will tell whether the Secretary of State's high hopes are justified.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. John MacLeod: I must say a few words in complimenting the Government on having brought the Bill to this stage. There is no doubt that people in the North of Scotland were disgusted at the conditions prevailing in the deer stalking areas.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was very contradictory and a little misleading. He said that agriculture and forestry play a big part in our economy and then he said that the red deer have no part to play at all. Everybody must agree, whether they ardently oppose them or not, that deer forests play their part in the Highland economy. We must remember that gamekeepers, stalkers, gillies and local stores all make a very good thing out of the people who come to the North and take deer forests. That point must not be neglected.
I dare say that this is not a perfect Bill, but we must congratulate the Government on having had the courage to tackle the problem. I and many other people hope that the Commission to be set up will be able to control deer and to play some part in improving the existing conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE AND OTHER CHARITIES (NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE) CHARITY BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir H. Linstead.]

Committee upon Wednesday next.

HOSPITAL OF ST. NICHOLAS (SALISBURY) CHARITY BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir H. Linstead.]

Committee upon Wednesday next.

JESUS HOSPITAL (ROTHWELL) CHARITY BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir H. Linstead.]

Committee upon Wednesday next.

POOR'S COAL CHARITY (WAVENDON) CHARITY BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir H. Linstead.]

Committee upon Wednesday next.

Orders of the Day — SPACE RESEARCH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: From red deer I should like to turn the attention of the House to Blue Streak and Black Knight. I want to raise tonight the subject of using military missiles for civilian space research.
Blue Streak and Black Knight are missiles which are being developed for defence and, when they are developed, they will be fired in Australia from time to time in training the R.A.F. My question is, "What plans are there for using these missiles during these firings as vehicles for launching satellites containing apparatus for scientific research in outer space?"
If there are no such plans, I would ask why there are not. In particular, I would ask the Government to set up a committee or group of scientists and engineers, directly responsible to the Ministry of Supply, for the purpose of carrying out such a project. If the Parliamentary Secretary tonight cannot give the House such an undertaking, then at least I hope that he will comment on


this point and others which I am about to make and of which I have already given notice to the Lord President of the Council.
My first point is that of cost. Most people who have considered space research are very much alarmed and confused by the gigantic expenditure in the United States, where there is rivalry between the three Services and the civilian space administration, which has resulted in three or four different space projects with terrific waste and duplication of effort.
I have not heard anyone in this country seriously suggesting that we cart afford anything like those projects. I am suggesting a much more modest project costing between £10 million and £20 million, spread over the next five years. From what I can discover, that should be enough for a project involving the launching of about five satellites, each containing apparatus for about five different experiments. We must remember that these satellites are not expendable. Sputnik III has been going for a year, and is still broadcasting. I am thinking of British satellites weighing about a ton and acting as space laboratories for about ten years. It is important that the Goverment should make up their mind fairly soon. There is an enormous amount of preparatory work to he done, especially on instruments. That is I say on the cost.
My second point concerns the information that the satellite would provide. We must regard these satellites as laboratories in space doing three things: looking down towards the earth; examing what there is in space, and looking outwards towards the sun. As to what they should do, it is obviously ridiculous for us to try to duplicate what the Russians and the Americans are doing, but there is plenty of scope without overlapping.
For instance, we might well leave the moon to the Russians and the Americans. It has always struck me as a singularly uninteresting place, and I have not the inquiring mind possessed by Edmund Gosse's cook who, hon. Members may remember, wrote:
O Moon, when I look at thy glorious face
Careering along through the boundaries of space

The thought has frequently come to my mind
If ever I'll gaze on thy glorious behind.
I think that we can leave the moon out of this.
We eliminate certain areas and certain subjects. One of the characteristics of our scientists has been their great success in selecting fields and subjects for study and research because, unlike the Russians and the Americans, their shortage of resources has made them think more and plan more. They have achieved wonders on very little, and because of inspired selection they have led in many fields. They are not asking for vast resources but for a modest opportunity.
There is plenty for the satellites to work on, even if we exclude the moon. There are certain fields of study with which we are particularly concerned and in which we have a especial tradition of study. I will mention only two and that under the heading of looking down towards the earth. First, there is looking down at the clouds. We need to know far more about the weather. Then, of course, there is the ionosphere to be studied. Ever since the discoveries of Sir Edward Appleton, British scientists have been in the lead in this field, and we should not prejudice our future achievements in it.
Incidentally, this particular field of pure science contributed greatly to radar, which every day guides aircraft and ships and which has saved countless lives. That is as good an example as I can think of where pure science paved the way for men—in this case, men including Sir Robert Watson-Watt and others—to develop practical equipment of great commercial value.
Another example which hon. Members may recall is the radio-active isotopes used in medicine. They came from advances in the study of nuclear energy. That only illustrates the point that we must not forget; that science does not work in watertight compartments but that what is learned in one compartment affects the others.
I have said something about the cost and something about the field of study. My third point, on which I should like some comment, is why I believe that we in this country should undertake this space project. For one reason, at very little cost it would offer a really thrilling


challenge to our engineers. In engineering there is obviously the assembly problem so that the missile can be assembled for use as a vehicle for the satellites.
The devices which will be developed to set up our laboratories in space are certain to be valuable in solving technological problems on earth. Then, of course, there will inevitably be the development of the rocket for sending back photographic information from a satellite. Our industry is bound to learn new ideas from space engineering.
Another reason is that at very little cost—again I emphasise that—it will provide a sign that the Government are interested in opportunities for scientific and engineering research in one of the most stimulating fields of our time. If scientists are to be inspired they must see that this country is in the forefront of scientific research.
Since it is selection—and I emphasise that—and brains, not vast resources, which keep us in the forefront, there is every reason why even a modest programme will give us what we want in scientific prestige and thus encourage our bright young men to stay here and not emigrate to the United States where they have all the resources available.
Again at very little cost it would show that we take account of our industrial prestige. Last Sunday's Observer, in a leading article caricaturing the case for space research, equated prestige with a space man heading for Mars with a Union Jack painted on his space helmet. The Observer staff have obviously been reading too much science fiction. Prestige is much more than Jet Morgan and Union Jacks.
The problem is simply this. If for the first time since the Industrial Revolution we publicly contract out of one of the major engineering and scientific adventures of our time, then the Government will be serving notice that within a decade we shall have ceased to be among the leading industrial and technological countries. It will be the first step in a retreat. If the retreat continues, it is not too fanciful to say that in the 1970s and 1980s the Persian or the Peruvian who wants to order electronic equipment, computers or television, or anything in that field, will not look to this country as he does today. He may do so for tractors

and ships, but for electronics and electrical equipment he certainly will not.
If that happens we shall be on the way to becoming one of the great "has beens" and shall be in danger in the lifetime of some of us of being forced to earn our living, and a poor living at that, dancing round the maypole to the delight of the Russian and American tourists who come to see our quaint folksy way of life.
I have said that this project would cost very little, but £10 million or £20 million is still a lot of money. It could build many hospitals, many houses and many roads. To those who say that we had better use the money on building hospitals, houses and roads and not on space research I would reply, of course I want hospitals and all the rest, but that 1 want them also in the 1970s and 1980s. Above all, I want to lay a firm basis for the country's wealth in the future. In the spring, we could always have more chips with our fish if we fried all the potatoes we had; but the wise man plants some of the potatoes in the ground so that in the summer he may harvest a crop. In other words, he looks to the future.
To sum up, we are spending millions and millions on developing certain missiles for defence. For between £10 million and £20 million, spread over five years, using these missiles, we could have a worth-while research project, with laboratories in space during the first critical decade of space study. As a country, our future depends on being among the leaders in modern technology. We cannot afford to tell the world that we are leaving this major branch of science to others. Industrially, we may not be a match for the two big giants, but we are still in industrial competition with Germany, France and Japan. We have a lead, and we cannot afford to lose it.

11.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I welcome this debate because it gives me an opportunity briefly to outline to the House what Britain has already done in this branch of research and to assure the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and the House that the Government are giving active consideration to


the question of this country engaging in an earth satellite programme.
The hon. Gentleman made some very pertinent points, but I do not think that he made any of which the Government are not already aware and which are not already under active consideration. I very much appreciate his courtesy in communicating his main points to my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council in order that I might have an opportunity to reply to them as fully as this particular debate will allow.
British activity in this field of space research began to take shape in the autumn of 1953 when the Royal Society considered the value and practicability of research into the upper atmosphere, which extends roughly to about 150 miles from the earth's surface. Outer space is the region beyond that. In April, 1955, five university groups started development work on experiments of their choice, and they have since been joined by a sixth. The Royal Aircraft Establishment undertook to develop rocket vehicles suitable for carrying these experiments, and. by agreement with the Australian Department of Supply, arrangements were made for the rockets to be launched at Woomera.
Early in 1957, the first trial flight of the rocket developed for this work, Skylark, took place. A series of 12 fully instrumented firings were started in the spring of 1958. A notable achievement was the launching of two Skylarks on the night of the International Geophysical Year World Day for Rockets.
Coming now to satellites, I want the House to be in no doubt about the magnitude of the effort which this country has already put into the tracking of the earth satellites launched by America and Russia and into analysing the data received from them. D.S.I.R. research stations at Slough and Singapore, the Jodrell Bank radio telescope, and some Ministry of Supply establishments did work which has been internationally acknowledged as very fine indeed.
In the observation of the first Russian satellite the data we obtained by radio, radar and optical methods was of the first quality. One of the very valuable results was new information about the shape of the earth. This country also made a valuable contribution to the study

of air drag on satellites and its interpretation in terms of air density. Much progress has already been made in the study of radio propagation from the Russian satellites which will yield results of great importance for the understanding of ionospheric behaviour. This and much more has been Britain's part in the internationally agreed plan for the International Geophysical Year, and I must say that it was fulfilled to an extent beyond the most optimistic expectations.
I now come to the question which the hon. Gentleman posed, whether the United Kingdom should follow America and Russia into engaging in an earth satellite programme. As the hon. Member has pointed out, we already have the Black Knight research vehicle and the Blue Streak ballistic missile under development which could carry satellites into space. Naturally, in considering this big problem the Government have taken into account the possible use of these vehicles for this purpose.
We must remember, however, that first and foremost Blue Streak is part of a military programme of deterrence. The Government could not allow any other use to which it might be put to harm or delay this programme. Also, it is important that we should not over-simplify the problems involved in fitting a satellite into the nose of a missile. It is dangerous to assume that one can just stick it on top without having any effect on the functioning of the missile. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but there are many people who have not given so much thought to the matter as he has who may be misled into assuming that there is nothing very complicated in adding a satellite once the missile has been developed.
As my right hon. Friend told the House in reply to a Question last Monday, the Government are at present considering whether we should engage in an earth satellite programme. There is, therefore, no statement of policy which I can properly make at this moment. The hon. Gentleman has evinced some impatience that a decision has not yet been taken, but I do not offer any apologies at all that the Government are taking time to make up their mind in these important matters. It is not merely a question of marginal cost in addition to an existing military programme.
There are many other things to consider: for example, the scientific effort that would be required, the form the programme should take, and whether the scientific results could not be achieved equally well and more economically by co-operation with other countries. Merely to send up yet another satellite into orbit would be of little profit even in prestige. There is little point in starting a programme of research which merely repeats work already being done elsewhere.
The Government have, therefore, sought the considered views of the best scientific opinion in the country. These views have to be considered in a wider context than space research. There are few, if any, fields of scientific research in any country which are as well equipped as the workers in that field would like them to be. No country can afford to advance in every field of scientific knowledge at once, as the hon. Gentleman indicated in his speech. Before we decide on any considerable programme of space research we have to be satisfied that the return would be likely to justify the effort. The Government are considering in the light of advice received whether and in what way the United Kingdom should extend its research activities into outer space, and I hope that an announcement will be made very shortly.
I turn now to some of the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. He suggested that the Government should set up a group of scientists and engineers, perhaps responsible to the Minister of Supply, to plan and carry out a satellite programme. I submit that consideration of how the programme should be managed must await a decision on whether we should have a programme at all and, if so, upon what scale.
With regard to cost, the hon. Member has hazarded a guess at the cost of a satellite programme over and above the expenditure on Blue Streak or Black Knight. He may be right; he may have been too optimistic. I do not want to argue about the figures when they must necessarily be so uncertain. Reliable estimates would not be possible until design studies had revealed much more of what was involved—for example, what form of guidance system a satellite should have. But before embarking on any expenditure the Government have to be quite sure that the money will be well

spent if applied to this purpose. They have to try to gauge the worth of the results that can be foreseen from this kind of research and try to speculate on those that cannot be foreseen. This leads me to another of the hon. Member's points.
The hon. Member has suggested that the satellites should be designed as laboratories in space, working on experiments in pure science. I welcome this observation, for I am sure that it is in this context that the worth of an independent United Kingdom programme must be weighed. If the Government do decide to embark on an earth satellite programme, it will not be to show that this country can throw objects into orbit around the earth as accurately as anyone else. Rather it will be to add to the sum of scientific knowledge and to gain what practical advantages it can.
The hon. Member mentioned the question of what he called the challenge to our scientists and engineers, and expressed concern about the future this country had to offer them in this new and exciting age. The hon. Member may be in danger of confusing the means with the ends. It would not be a sufficient reason for a satellite programme that the Government should find something stimulating and exciting for some of our scientists to do. In any case, there are many other rewarding fields of scientific and engineering endeavour in this country. I need only cite the work we are doing in nuclear science and engineering. I do not think a satellite programme is so crucially important that the scientific well being of the country stands or falls by it.
Also, I do not think that the dangers of scientific emigration should be exaggerated. A certain flow in and out of scientists is positively desirable. In its 1956–57 report to the Lord President of the Council the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy found little evidence that an undue proportion of our better students were leaving the United Kingdom. In the following year the Council found no change to report in this situation. This question of scientific emigration is therefore nothing new. The effect on it of what we decide to do on space research should not be exaggerated. The value to the general health of our scientific effort of being engaged in such forward-looking work is much more significant.
The Government are naturally particularly alive to the possibilities of cooperation with Commonwealth countries. Many of them can contribute scientific expertise. Australia has the only rocket range in the southern hemisphere. But precise proposals for co-operation must await a decision by the Government whether or not to engage in a satellite programme.
There is and will continue to be great scope for international co-operation beyond the ties of the Commonwealth in this field. Scientists from many countries, including Russia, joined together last year to form the International Committee on Space Research, which goes by the short title of COSPAR. This is one of the fruits of the International Geophysical Year. COSPAR is an organisation of scientists, not of Governmental representatives, and was set up by the International Council of Scientific Unions. The United Nations Assembly has given much thought to the need for international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space. An ad hoc committee of the United Nations is likely to meet

shortly to consider what action can profitably be taken at inter-governmental level. The British Government earnestly hope that the Soviet Union will decide to participate in the work of the ad hoc committee.
The subject raised by the hon. Gentleman is, as I have said, occupying the close attention of the Government at the present time, and I hope that he will not have to wait very long for much more information than I have been able to give him in this short debate.

Mr. de Freitas: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. He has expressed the hope that I shall not have to wait very much longer. Can he say whether it is days or weeks or months before we are likely to have a decision announced in this House?

Mr. Taylor: I hope it will not be weeks or months.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.